Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2009

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

No, no, this is very important. A customer doesn't contract with an airline association. A customer contracts with an airline.

Which of your airlines are signatories to “Flight Rights Canada”?

[John McKenna]

I'm told that about 90% of the airlines are signatories.

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

Would you be able to present information or evidence to this committee that any of your members have provided any information to their passengers through their on-flight magazines, brochures, or posters or in the training of their staff of the existence of “Flight Rights Canada” and what those provisions require of them?

[John McKenna]

All the airlines have their own policies as far as how they operate and as far as customer relations are concerned. Not all airlines have flight magazines and so on. Many of our airlines--

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

Understood, but would you endeavour to provide to the committee, on behalf of your membership, with specific examples, airline by airline, of how they inform their passengers of “Flight Rights Canada”? Could I also ask if you would actually provide a copy of the formal document in which your member airlines signed on formally to “Flight Rights Canada”?

Would you be able to provide that to this committee?

[John McKenna]

I will provide that to the committee. I will do the research and send it to all the committee members if that is a request.

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

Thank you very much.

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

Would you direct that to the clerk, please?

[John McKenna]

Yes, of course.

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

Would you agree with Mr. Prud'homme who appeared before us and said that the preferable situation would be for the CTA, with its existing knowledge and competence in civil aviation regulation, legislation, investigation, and enforcement, to be empowered with additional provisions to actually investigate and enforce matters that provide an inconvenience to passengers? He said that the CTA should be directed to do so within a minimum standard of passenger protection.

[Tracy Medve, Director, Board of Directors, Air Transport Association of Canada]

If I may answer, it's our preference or recommendation, as an airline and as a member of the board of directors of ATAC, that you do not support this bill. However, the CTA is a possible forum for having those matters reviewed if there's a complaint.

I represent Canadian North. We're a very small carrier, relatively speaking, in terms of the size of the airline and the number of aircraft we fly. Geographically, we cover almost all of Canada, and many of our customers are our owners. We're owned 100% by the Inuit of Nunavut and the Inuvialuit of the western Arctic.

The CTA could be a possible forum. There have been disappointments with the CTA, among some member carriers, in the duration of time it takes the CTA to deal with certain matters, such as the issuance of licences and some of those things that are critical to our ability to do business. If there's no licence, you can't operate--

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

But in matters relating to basic customer service--excuse me for interrupting--that doesn't imply a safety feature, just a simple investigation. That's probably what you're saying.

Am I hearing you correctly, that it's not a bad format to decide whether or not it was a CATSA problem versus an airline problem?

[Tracy Medve]

I'm saying it's a possible format, but I don't necessarily agree that those kinds of customer complaint issues will turn out to be simple. Usually it's not a simple set of circumstances that have arrived at someone's being unhappy.

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

That's why someone with competence in being able to investigate and enforce those kinds of matters, as to where the competence or incompetence lies, is important.

Mr. McKenna, can I ask you, have you been contacted by the minister or the minister's office, or by anyone with Transport Canada, prior to M-465, my motion calling for an airline passenger bill of rights, which passed unanimously in the House of Commons on June 9, 2008? I think that was the date. Were you contacted by the minister or the minister's office, or any of his agents or officials, asking you, prior to that vote occurring, to get out there, get the ducks lined up, lobby against this effort?

You're under oath, I remind you. Are there any e-mails that you are aware of from the minister or the minister's office to you, or to any of your agents, or staff, or members?

[John McKenna]

I read that article in the paper this morning also.

I arrived in my position on January 1, 2009, so I started investigating that very subject. We have no recollection of any such contact with ATAC personnel or its president on this subject.

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

You have 30 seconds.

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

Do you think it would it have been better, actually, for the government to act? Would you rather be reacting today to a government piece of legislation or a private member's bill?

[John McKenna]

Sir, the source of the bill is not the issue. The issue is the content of the bill.

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

So you don't want any consumer protection.

I just want to follow this correctly. The minister himself said that enforceable consumer protection for airline passengers is a must. That's what he said when he voted for my motion. It is not in place today as it should be, and it has to be in place.

Do you want the minister to bring forward, as he promised to do, enforceable, robust consumer protection legislation for airline passengers?

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

It will have to be a very brief answer.

[John McKenna]

I would encourage the minister to consult with the industry before doing so, but certainly we would cooperate in such an ordeal.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Laframboise, you now have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

I will resume the interpretation I was giving the witnesses previously.

Mr. Fruitman, you mentioned that changes could be made. And Mr. McKenna, you said that some measures in the bill could be amended. The problem is that this is a private member's bill. We can't do whatever we want with the bill.

Let me give you an example. The Liberals and New Democrats are going too far in the Air Cubana tragedy, which affected a number of Quebeckers. I call it a tragedy because in March 2008, travellers remained on the tarmac at the Ottawa airport for several hours because their plane had been diverted to Ottawa because of the weather. The Ottawa airport authority told us that Air Cubana hadn't paid its dues, while Air Cubana said that it had. Ultimately, the passengers were the ones to pay the price. What is important to me is that the passengers are treated fairly.

I must tell you that I submitted to the legislative clerks in the House of Commons an amendment that reads as follows: That Bill C-310, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) If the air carrier required to provide services or compensation under subsections (1) or (2) is of the opinion that the delay results from a measure or decision taken by an airport authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), NAV CANADA or the Canada Border Services Agency, it may submit the matter to the Department of Transport, which shall determine the responsibility of the organization in question and its obligation to refund the air carrier the amounts it had to pay out under subsections (1) or (2).

I felt this was straightforward. If passengers ever had such an experience, like the one experienced by Air Cubana passengers, they should be compensated. If the airline is not responsible, whoever is will reimburse it.

I received the opinion of the legislative clerk of the House of Commons: my motion is out of order because this changes the meaning of the private member's bill. It is not a government bill. I want you to understand this, Mr. Fruitman. I agree that we should protect consumers, but my hands are tied because this is a private member's bill, which can only be subject to very minor amendments. The majority of Mr. McKenna' s proposals and what you might propose will be found out of order by the legislative clerk of the House of Commons. This is not a government bill. Only government bills can be amended by committee, changed, improved, etc. A private member's bill is limited to its initial intent, and that is the problem we have here.

You can blame me, you can say that I am bending to pressure by lobbyists —which is not the case and never has been —but I will never agree to saying things that I cannot legally say. I am not entitled to make the amendments that I want to make to this bill because it is a private member's bill.

Whether Mr. Byme likes it or not, the government responded to his motion. It agreed to the plan put forward by the air carriers. There was a motion, the government accepted the agreement signed by the air carriers, but it decided not to table a bill. That is the government's decision, but we cannot do whatever we want with this private member's bill. I would like you to tell me what you would like to change and that you understand my position. Do you have any comments or questions?

[John McKenna]

I can answer quickly. If I have understood what you said, airline companies would have to pay and then try to be reimbursed. It is complicated.

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

As far as I am concerned, that would be an option. I would like to help Air Cubana passengers who spent so many hours on the tarmac. They should have received compensation. I agree.