Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Let me move on to another situation. I worked on an assembly line in a factory. I've pulled work refusals for unsafe circumstances. If I happen to be a member of a ground crew, not related to the airline or the air carrier, and I pull a work refusal because the area out on the ground may be unsafe for me working there, and that causes a delay for the airline, is it the airline's fault? In other words, should they have to pay compensation for something that's a bona fide safety issue for somebody's health and safety, but is unrelated to the responsibility of the air carrier? Is that a fair thing to ask the airline carrier to pay compensation for?

[Mel Fruitman]

I would think, if I understand you, that unless it was shown that pulling that work order...airline was as a result of negligence on behalf of the airline--in other words, this is something that was discovered on the line--it would fall under the extraordinary measures category.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I've also been injured on the job. In fact, I got hit on the head on the assembly line by a moving part. I was out for 40 minutes, but I'll tell you, my zone manager wanted the assembly line started back up because of the cost to the auto manufacturer of down time on the assembly line.

If we have a worker who's out in the apron area and they encounter a work injury--it may not necessarily have anything to do with the air carrier--should the air carrier be responsible for paying compensation for a delayed flight because of a work injury? It can certainly happen a lot more often than some may realize, but it certainly can happen. If a worker is injured out there, is that fair to make an air carrier pay for that?

[Mel Fruitman]

Again, I think these are all specific examples--hypothetical ones, or perhaps real ones--that could be covered off under the legislation and I think there is sufficient wiggle room in there, if you like, to allow for those kinds of decisions to take place--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

How about this one? This one actually happened to me. I was on a flight from Ottawa to London and was delayed out on the tarmac for over two hours because of congestion that was created by a problem in Toronto.

Is it right to make the air carrier that I was flying on responsible to compensate me for being out on the tarmac for that long? We weren't allowed to come into the gate and deplane. There was congestion in the area. It happened.

[Mel Fruitman]

Again, I'm going to come back to the point that you are citing specific examples of things that might go wrong and the penalties associated with them. That, in my opinion, is not the thrust of this legislation. The thrust of the legislation is, indeed, to change behaviour, and given--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Fruitman, it's actually my time. But my point here, Mr. Fruitman, is that there's a structural problem with the bill in that it places sole responsibility for any problem on the air carrier. As Mr. Maloway suggests, let the air carrier go after others who are responsible.

I think the bill has a structural problem, Mr. Fruitman, and needs to be rejected.

If I have any time, Mr. Chair--

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

Mr. Watson, it is no longer your time.

It's Mr. Dhaliwal's time.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. McKenna, first of all, when it comes to the advertised prices, do you have any objection when it comes to all fees displayed?

[John McKenna]

That's a very difficult thing to do, because many different airports have many different fees. So how would you do that? We certainly wouldn't object that the passenger know everything that he's paying for, or he needs to pay, before he can get on the flight. I got on a flight yesterday from Quebec City. The price was $200 before taxes, and after all the fees it was $415. The airline is not responsible for all these fees.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Basically, you are saying no.

[John McKenna]

I'm saying I have no objection.

[Tracy Medve]

If I may, I think it's important to understand that the carriers wouldn't have a problem as long as all carriers displayed the fares the same way.

[John McKenna]

Yes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Maloway is willing to make some compromises. What parts of Bill C-310 do you foresee would be difficult to enforce and should get the attention of the committee?

[Tracy Medve]

Do you mean which elements of the bill would be difficult to enforce?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes, to enforce, and what are your suggestions? Mr. Maloway is willing to compromise or make changes.

[John McKenna]

We have suggested a series of amendments. Actually, I'm surprised you haven't received them. We sent them to everybody. I'll give you a copy before we leave today. We sent them to every member of the committee on November 12.

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

I received that.

[John McKenna]

There are many aspects of this bill, too many to list at this point. We'll gladly work with you if you want to do that, sir.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

This question goes to both Mr. Fruitman and Mr. McKenna.

Do you think it's fair and ethical, when we are drafting a bill, that comments should only go to the industry and not to the consumers or the consumer groups? Do you think it's very fair?

[John McKenna]

What would go?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When we are drafting a bill, you say that industry should be consulted. Is it fair that we should only go to the industry, but not go to the consumers?

[John McKenna]

Of course not. I think all stakeholders should be consulted. It goes without saying.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Fruitman, can you tell me if there is any way you see that this bill can be improved? Can you make any suggestions?