Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Laframboise]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Volpe indicated to me that he would be a few minutes late. I will therefore be taking the chair during these few minutes.

Mr. French and Mr. Prud'homme, you have 10 minutes to make a presentation. In theory, this 10-minute period is for both of your presentations, but we can be tolerant. Afterwards, each political party will have a first round of questions, seven minutes each and then, and there will be a second five-minute round. I will hand you the floor.

Having myself been mayor of a municipality in my former life, I will give Mr. French the floor first and Mr. Prud'homme second.

[Woodrow French, Mayor, Town of Conception Bay South]

Merci. Bienvenue à tout le monde.

Unfortunately, that's the extent of my French, but I want to thank you for the invitation to present to this committee today, especially seeing that I was the one who started all the fuss. Hopefully we'll come out with a good resolution.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present to you and the committee concerning the Air Passengers' Bill of Rights. As you mentioned, my name is Woodrow French. I'm the mayor of the little town of Conception Bay South, which is just outside of St. John's in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would also like you to note that in my real life I'm a safety consultant, so I do occupational health and safety. My concern for safety is right up there.

I'd just like to say that I was a little disappointed in the amount of notice I got that I was appearing at the committee today. It's fortunate that I'm here on Federation of Canadian Municipalities business. I was on an aircraft yesterday afternoon at 5:30 to come up here, so I spent my morning preparing my notes. Hopefully I'll be able to get all my points in.

My quest for a bill of rights started in December of 2007, when I observed families and seniors distressed while waiting for air travel at St. John's International Airport at 1 a.m. on a cold wintry night. The terminal was full of people, and there were two airline employees working the counter, no announcements made, and no extra staff to give information. People told me they would not be able to get a flight until the following week at the earliest. Others had tickets and were told there were no seats available for them.

The people who were there were young families with small kids, and at one o'clock in the morning the kids were wired and running around. The families were there, completely distressed, not knowing what to do. I guess the saddest thing was to notice the seniors who were there in the airport, some of whom had come a long way from small communities, had shown up at the airport, had no hotel, didn't know whether to leave the airport or stay there, and there was absolutely nobody there to help them. A lot of them were told no one knew when they were going to get out.

As a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and a mayor, I felt I had a platform to be able to bring the concerns of the flying public to a provincial and national level. To assist me, I got the backing of the members of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic mayors caucus, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It's not a local issue. It's not localized to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an issue that affects Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada, be it northern Quebec, southern Ontario, or British Columbia; it doesn't matter.

I went to the media and I contacted members of the House of Assembly as well as my members of Parliament. Once the story got out provincially and nationally, the horror stories of air travel throughout Canada started to pour in. Lobbying by the groups I have mentioned struck a national chord, and ordinary Canadians told their stories of problems they had with airlines, both Canadian and foreign.

I guess probably one of the saddest examples I can quote is one that happened here in Ottawa, our nation's capital. My fellow Canadians were kept on a Cubana Airlines aircraft for six hours, with no food, no water, toilets that were overflowing. I think it is horrible to have this occur in the nation's capital, with nobody at the airport with enough guts to say, “Bring that aircraft into the terminal and let these people off.” I think that's what really started to get this thing going.

They spoke of overbooking, being bumped from flights, lost luggage, being held hostage on airport tarmacs by not being allowed to deplane, and rude treatment by the airlines. They went to their members of Parliament, whom they elected, for help in correcting the problems they were encountering while travelling on airlines in Canada and to other countries. I myself have travelled in Canada's north and have encountered situations where flights were cancelled without warning. Even staff in the isolated community were not given any information as to if and when the aircraft would arrive. All they could tell you was, “Go back to your boarding house and wait, and when you get a call, get down here as fast as you possibly can.”

I've been advocating for an airline passengers' bill of rights since 2007. I'm looking for legislation similar to the legislation currently in place in the European Union.

After all the negative publicity, MP Gerry Byrne, who I'm pleased to see here today, contacted me and asked if I would mind if he introduced a resolution asking fellow members of Parliament to support a bill of rights. I was ecstatic that I was making headway on the issue.

The resolution was passed, and Transport Canada proposed “Flight Rights Canada”, a useless, toothless piece of garbage that only further infuriated the travelling public. It was just unbelievable that they would come out with this if they meant what they said about flight rights Canada being the end-all and be-all of what was required. After that, we got more complaints with regard to bumping and overselling of flights, and on and on it went.

Following this, I was contacted by MP Jim Maloway, who informed me that he was going to introduce a private member's bill in the House of Commons calling on the government to legislate a bill of rights. It would ensure that air travellers in Canada would be treated with courtesy and respect and would be adequately compensated for disruptions in their travel plans caused by decisions made by the airlines. The bill was passed unanimously and now sits with you in this committee for action.

Members of the committee, Canadians are not asking for anything other than to be treated fairly by air carriers. We're not asking pilots to put passengers and aircraft in jeopardy. That would be unconscionable. All we're asking is to be treated fairly and to be adequately compensated. To do this is just a really good business practice. We pay our hard-earned dollars for tickets, sometimes well in advance of our flight dates, not knowing whether the services will be delivered to us as we contracted them. I think of those Canadians who have gone to the airport with their families to go on a holiday only to be told that the aircraft was oversold and they aren't going. To me, that's not acceptable.

In the EU, Canadian airlines that do business there are familiar with this legislation. For those airlines that cry out that they'll be hurt and will be put out of business and so on, not one Canadian airline has gone out of business; I've contacted people in the EU, and they've told me that the only airlines that have ever gone out of business were airlines that were on shaky ground even before the legislation came in.

If I buy a ticket in London and I want to come to Canada, I am protected by the EU bill of rights. If I'm not treated fairly by a Canadian airline, then the Canadian airline must compensate me for that. I've heard airlines in Canada and the association come out and say that it's going to put undue stress on them. Well, they haven't been stressed yet, and they're still flying to Europe. I haven't heard any of them come out and say that they aren't going to fly there anymore because of the legislation.

I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the articles in yesterday's media wherein it was reported that senior bureaucrats and the Minister of Transport were lobbying the airlines to oppose any efforts that would see this legislation pass. To me this indicates that these senior officials not only have no respect for their minister but have no respect for the wishes of the Canadian public.

A quote by Mr. Fitzgerald said that European rights focus on denied boarding, cancelled flights, and delays “in an industry known for regularly overbooking passengers, cancelling undersold flight and making refunds difficult”.

Isn't this what we're talking about in Canada? It's the same thing.

Obviously, Transport Canada officials are too close to the industry they regulate. This doesn't give me, or any other Canadian, a warm cuddly feeling that these people are going to come in and make anything voluntary stick. Nobody is going to be held accountable. If I and my business don't deliver services that I contract to deliver, then I'm chastised for that and I'm held to account for it.

The airlines have stated their opposition to the legislation, and have said, you know, maybe French has a point when he talks about this airline passengers' bill of rights. Boy, maybe he has something that we really didn't think about. So we're going to come out now and--

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. French, excuse me, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.

[Woodrow French]

No problem.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thanks.

[Woodrow French]

To conclude, I long for the days when air travellers were treated fairly. I remember being fog-delayed, and when we arrived at our alternate airport, hotels were booked, buses were waiting, and information was available on rescheduling. We were gotten to our destination as quickly as possible.

Members of the committee, I urge you to recommend this legislation. Listen to the Canadian public and support it with all the power you have. You will be doing a justice to every Canadian who elected you and who has to use air transportation to get to all parts of our great country.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. French.

Let me apologize for having come here late.

I gather that somebody has already introduced Monsieur Marco Prud'homme, president and general manager of Quebec Air Transportation Association.

Mr. Prud'homme, you have 10 minutes.

[Marco Prud'homme, President and General Manager, Quebec Air Transportation Association]

Thank you very much.

We would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our concerns and recommendations regarding Bill C-310.

The AQTA is a non-profit organization working for the development of the Quebec air transportation industry. We represent all industry stakeholders, airline companies, airports, schools, maintenance and service companies.

Upon reviewing the bill, our association wonders what justifies such an initiative. After consulting the Canadian Transportation Agency, we learned that the number of new complaints regarding air transport services has decreased since 2005.

In 2005, there were 1,337 new complaints and, as you can see, this figure has decreased from year to year. For the period 2008-2009, there were 901 new complaints. It should be noted that not only has the number of complaints dropped, but according to Statistics Canada, the number of domestic flights has increased since 2003. The percentage of complaints versus the total number of passengers has also gone down.

Aside from peoples' perception, the reality in terms of air transportation services is statistically well documented in Canada. With respect to the percentage of complaints, I believe this ratio would be appreciated by a number of industries. Moreover, I believe our air transportation system is adequate, even though there is always room for improvement.

Our analysis has revealed that this bill does not reflect a negative industry trend. Our research has also revealed that according to the Canadian Transportation Agency's report for the period of 2008-2009, only 9% of those complaints applied to small- to mid-size carriers. It is therefore surprising that the bill does not make any distinction between various categories of carriers.

Article 21 of the bill refers to the Canadian Transportation Agency, however, it seems to give it only a purely administrative role. It is however a fact that if there is a real need in the field, the agency, according to its mission, vision and values, must respond to the concerns of Canadians and put forward a code of practice regarding transport conditions to solve the issue.

Furthermore, we believe that the bill does not address a number of issues. Does this bill cover the complex nature of air operations? How will this bill financially impact carriers? What will be the impact on remote routes? Will it lead to fair increases for passengers?

Air Inuit is a native-operated carrier that has been active in Quebec for several years. One of the company executives has provided us with the following example. On the Salluit-Montreal route, the distance is 1,864 kms; the aircraft would be a 45-seat Dash-8, and in case of cancellation the penalty would be $36,000 per flight for 45 passengers, or $800 per passenger. In the case of a five-hour delay, a penalty of $22,500 per flight would have to be paid. The carrier has mentioned that its rate, as submitted to the Canadian Transportation Agency, already includes measures in the case of cancellations, delays and denied boardings.

Adversely, this bill would lead to a degradation of services and create hardship for a number of regional carriers. This is also true for carriers providing service to northern Quebec, the Maritimes, the Magdalen Islands. Please review the letter from Air Inuit outlining this issue.

Could we improve on this bill? Some stakeholders would like to change its spirit as well as the content of the bill, while others would like to add exceptions and specifics. We do not believe that a bill with such a simplistic view of our industry can solve a systemic problem, because this bill does not take into account the numerous key players influencing the system, the complex nature of air operations, or our geographic reality.

The right question we need to ask ourselves is the following. Which tool available in Canada would be the most suitable to address the concerns that have prompted the creation of such a bill? In our opinion, that tool is the Canadian Transportation Agency. The agency is composed of a team of qualified, experienced and knowledgeable individuals, and above all, it is independent. It is not influenced by private or political interests in its actions regarding those issues.

These are our recommendations. Carriers should not be the only ones bearing the financial burden when they operate within an environment that includes a number of stakeholders and variables. It is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt what may have caused a delay, something which unfortunately can be a byproduct of our network's operations.

The concerns that are at the root of this initiative could be validated and analyzed by the Canadian Transportation Agency in view of finding viable solutions that effectively meet real needs.

In the interest of our air transport network and that of the Canadian public, we recommend that this committee reject this bill because it is unjustified, inappropriate and inapplicable.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Prud'homme.

We will now proceed with questions.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to both of our witnesses appearing before us today.

Mr. Prud'homme, your justification for not needing consumer protection legislation for airline passengers appears to be based on the diminishing number of complaints put before the airline ombudsman. You seem to regard this as a clear indication that this is not justified.

Do you think that some of this may be because the office of the airline ombudsman had its powers dramatically changed around 2005, and because 2008, which was the year complaints were lowest, was also the year that “Flight Rights Canada” was introduced?

“Flight Rights Canada” was supposed to be the catch-all policy to prevent and to arbitrate consumer complaints in the airline industry. But we've come to learn through documents presented to members of Parliament, and through CanWest News Service's Sarah Schmidt, that “Flight Rights Canada” has an entire budget of $15,000 to publicize this initiative. Canadians don't even know what their rights are.

Does that affect the number of complaints, in your opinion?

[Marco Prud'homme]

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to your question. I would note that the number of complaints drops from year to year. I think that there are still ways of improving services. We are of the view that it should be done by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That would be very helpful. It would be extremely helpful to the CTA, which is not actively engaged in arbitrating consumer complaints.

I want to move now to Mr. French.

Woody, I remember your being extremely vocal and very proud that the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party and its members, embraced my motion, M-465, calling on the government to bring forward binding, robust, enhanced consumer protection for airline passengers. I said that this legislation should be modelled on U.S. legislation before the Congress and as well on legislation passed by the Parliament of the European Union. This European legislation is currently in force for every flight—including Air Canada, WestJet, and Air Transat—that enters the European Union's air space and lands at European aerodromes.

In the last 48 hours, we learned that your enthusiasm for the government's support for my motion was, quite frankly, very insincere. We learned that the former Minister of Transport, Lawrence Cannon, while he was professing to support the motion, was actively engaging lobbyists to undermine, to thwart, that very effort.

Mr. French, just turn around for a second and look around you. Do you see most of those people there? Some are journalists, some are from the Department of Transport, but a lot of them are lobbyists. They're here to make sure that what you and I and others set out to do—protect airline passengers—doesn't happen.

How does that make you feel when you consider that you put this forward as an idea, joined by many people? You have the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on board. You have parliamentarians on board. You have a number of different consumer groups actively engaged in this.

The Minister of Transport, himself, e-mailed lobbyists telling them he was going to pretend to support this, but asking them to do everything in their power, making use of the airlines' resources, to ensure that this gets killed. And yet the minister voted for it anyway. Apparently he voted for bad public policy.

And now airline companies are coming to us and asking us not to vote for a bad public policy.

What would happen if we simply followed the minister's own lead?

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm going to have to give Mr. French a minute and a half to respond.

[Woodrow French]

Well; I'm impressed.

All I'm asking for and all we've asked for is fair and equitable treatment. It was supported by everybody in the House of Commons. It certainly would disappoint not only me but every other Canadian who's had a problem and not been adequately compensated for that problem.

I think big money talks. Obviously, somebody must be making a buck to be able to employ lobbyists. I can't, and I don't think any other Canadian can. I hope the members of Parliament on all sides of the House can sit down and look at what's needed and deal with that the best way they can, and I think that's being fair to the travelling public.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. French.

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Volpe.

Usually I ask questions but today I will make a comment, because during debate it is probably our party, the Bloc Québécois, which will make the difference and will vote against this bill. I'll explain why.

How can a political party say yes to a bill at first reading and change its mind when the bill is referred to a committee? One of the Bloc Québécois' goals was, as you mentioned earlier, Mr. French, to address the Air Cubana issue as a large number of passengers on the plane were Quebeckers. Several were from my riding. The stated purpose of this bill was to deal with the Air Cubana case. This bill will not deal with the Air Cubana case because it has never been proven that the airline was responsible. The airport authority had its share of responsibility.

My goal is for the various parties responsible for delays to pay for the problem they caused. That is not what this bill does. The problem with private members' bills is that we cannot amend them. I will table amendments. I had them checked by the law clerk of the House of Commons, but they will not be in order because this is a private member's bill.

To deal with the Air Cubana situation, to address a number of the situations you referred to, Mr. French, we would need a government bill and we would have to be sitting around the same table as NAV CANADA, CATSA, the airport authorities and the Canada Border Services Agency, because they all contribute to the problem in several situations.

Obviously, the airline company shares some responsibility, I am prepared to have the airlines pay for the problems they caused, but I would not want to have the airline paying for a problem others have caused.

When a bill provides that any delay is the airline company's responsibility, inevitably airlines would be paying for errors they did not commit in a number of cases. That is the problem with this bill, we cannot do what we want with a private member's bill.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this, Mr. French, and Mr. Prud'homme afterwards.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Who wants to begin?

Mr. Prud'homme, and then we'll go to Mr. French.

[Marco Prud'homme]

Thank you for the question.

In fact, we feel that the complexity of the air transportation system has not been taken into consideration. Airlines are being accused when, although on occasion there are operational problems, they are often problems related to ground equipment, de-icing facilities, airports, gates, etc. There are many parties involved. Sometimes, a flight plan might not have been received by NAV CANADA, or might be misplaced. There can be many reasons for delays. Putting everything in the same basket and on the back of the airlines is unfair and unjustified in our opinion.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. French.

[Woodrow French]

Thank you very much.

One of the things that I always say is that when you point the finger at somebody, remember where the other three point. I think you're right on. I believe that everybody has to take responsibility for their actions. I believe that when something is done and it's not done right, then somebody has to be held accountable. If you have people who are sitting in a government office asking airlines to come out and oppose this bill, then I think that's unacceptable. If it was in my town, I would have to pay the ultimate price for that. I have to be accountable to my residents, and people who are elected to the House of Parliament have to be accountable to their constituents as well, and hopefully everybody is. In that case, when you have people on all sides of the House who have come out and supported this legislation and then you have something like this go on, I think the Canadian public is confused. I don't think they know who to trust anymore.

It's not going to put anybody out of business. It hasn't put anybody out of business yet.

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

I understand, Mr. French, except that I am not being influenced by lobbyists. I am telling you this in all sincerity because the Bloc Québecois has done its homework.

The problem is that a bill like this, that would result in the airlines being the only ones held responsible, could endanger various routes, to the Magdalen Islands, Northern Quebec and the Gaspé. Of course, we believe on our side that we cannot allow services to be jeopardized. Mr. Mayor, I am certain that if the consequence was to abolish a route from your municipality, you would be angry. This could happen with this bill because, ultimately—Mr. Prud'homme mentioned it a little earlier—small airlines are held responsible to the same extent as large airlines, so there has really been no in-depth debate. This idea is interesting: any passenger who experiences a delay should be compensated. The problem on the ground is that this could result in routes being cut to remote regions. However, I cannot agree with that, and the lobbyists will not be the ones to change my mind. I am aware of the consequences that this could have. When Air Inuit said, in a letter, that this might endanger some of its routes, that concerns me. The lobbyists are not the ones saying it; Air Inuit is saying that this could result in some routes being cancelled.

Would you be in agreement with this bill if it were to lead to the closure of various routes?

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. French, you have exactly 63 seconds.

[Woodrow French]

Okay.

That's a loaded question. I believe the airlines, regardless of whether they're big or small, are not a charitable organization. They're not in this to lose money. They're in it to make money. If they're not, they're not good business people. If you have a piece of equipment and the piece of equipment breaks down, then have a spare part to fix it. It can probably be fixed, but if not, have another aircraft available.

I don't think anybody wants to put anybody out of business. That's certainly not my case. Maybe in this case, one size doesn't fit all.

Having said that, I don't care if I'm in Maine or if I'm at St. John's International Airport or Montreal airport, and I don't care who's flying me. But if I buy a ticket that says you have to get me from point A to point B, then I think that you, being the airline, have to have sufficient equipment, in good shape, or be willing to make an alternative arrangement for me.

I haven't seen anybody go out of business yet.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. French. I have to stop you here.

I have to go to Mr. Maloway.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Prud'homme, have you read this bill?