Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2009

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

I am not questioning the decision that has been made, Mr. Chair, it is simply that it is important for my consideration of Bill C-310. I have always said that in a bill that is a passengers' bill of rights, in my opinion, I think all the players who are responsible should be the ones who pay damages when they have caused a problem. I have always given the example of the Air Cubana case. The bill I have in front of me has merit, the idea is good, but in my opinion the result is not satisfactory.

When you stated the options at the beginning, Mr. Chair, I had already analyzed all my options. I am prepared to move that we report to the House, and I would make the following motion, which I will read:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, and, after concluding hearings on Bill C-310 (Air Passengers' Bill of Rights), the Committee report that it recommends that the House do not proceed further with Bill C- 310 because it makes air carriers responsible for passenger inconveniences and excludes the responsibility of other parties such as an airport authority, NAV CANADA, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), and the Canada Border Services Agency.

That is the sense of my amendments, that is what I have always said, and this bill does not make airlines responsible. I know there will be a slew of amendments introduced by the NDP, I know there is goodwill on the part of the Liberals, the idea is to exclude a lot of things or not make them responsible.

But we are not doing passengers any favour if, when we enact this bill, we solve all the problems of delays and incorporate exclusions and ways of doing things that mean that airlines are not held responsible. We are not doing passengers any favour.

There should have been a major joint effort, is what the witnesses have told us. Everyone should have sat down at the same table: NAV CANADA, the airport authorities, CATSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and they should have worked out a policy on this, unless the government introduces a new bill. The bill that we have before us doesn't do passengers any favour. This is the report I am proposing, and if I have a seconder, I would be prepared to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I go to comments, I guess I'm asking whether you're putting that forward as a motion, option number four, which would report that the bill be not further proceeded with, and the reasons given.

I have Mr. Mayes and Mr. Volpe.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I'll second that motion. That's all I wanted to do, clarify if it was a motion, and if so, I was willing to second it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Debate, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm a little disappointed that if we were to choose that option.... I'll tell you that we presented a couple of amendments for the purposes of clarifying what we think is the intent of the bill. They go to some of the concerns that have been expressed by members, by stakeholders, and others.

It is our view that the legislation already addresses something in the legal environment with which we are seized as a country. We operate in the same airspace and in the same markets as the European Union and North America. It is clear that there is already a body of law that addresses the issues we are asked to address in this legislation. Those laws are ones that our carriers must abide by when they travel beyond our own domestic market.

It seems rather strange to us that we would hold the carriers to a standard that is clearly higher than the one they have to follow in the domestic environment. Nonetheless, to address some of the concerns—because we did not receive any specific documentation from the carriers in respect of this law—we proposed amendments that, in our estimation, are not inconsistent with some of the others that are put forward.

They go as follows, Mr. Chairman. They go to define a little more clearly and more specifically the extraordinary circumstances. In fact, they go so far as to replicate the language preferred by KLM and Delta Air LInes when they went to courts to present what they meant by extraordinary circumstances. Second, they address the issues of the amount of liability, in order to get away from the red herring of suggesting that people can actually turn this into a business enterprise by booking a $99 ticket and then reaping $500 in benefits, hoping that some things will go wrong. It's an interesting kind of focus on how to buy lottery tickets.

Our amendments address those two issues: to put fines into a particular context of reasonableness, and to place Bill C-310 in a jurisprudence that is already existent.

For us to consider that we not report this to the House or even allow the House to reflect on this once more would seem a bit excessive. So we wouldn't support that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have a point of order in relation to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll hear Mr. Jean on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Volpe.... Even following Mr. Laframboise's motion, the House still gets an opportunity to speak about this issue. It still goes back to the House for a continued one-hour debate.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, I thought his motion really was that the House not consider this further.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It still goes back for a one-hour debate.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It goes back as a concurrence motion; that's all.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It still goes back to the House for consideration.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But it tells the House not to consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It does go back as a concurrence motion for debate in the House and it's placed on the Order Paper by the clerk after agreement with the parties. So it does go back.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I'm not in support of this motion.

I think the motion is premature. We haven't had a debate over the amendments. In some respects this bill matches up to what is the practice in Europe. It gives airlines, under the extraordinary circumstances clause, all the leeway they require. What many of our amendments are doing is simply clarifying the extraordinary circumstances.

There are amendments that would provide some reduced rates; there are things that can make this bill more understandable. Nonetheless, the bill is about the relationship between the air carrier and the general public. The bill was designed not to put a burden on Transport Canada or on Nav Canada; it was to define the relationship between the air carrier and the passenger. That's what the bill's intent was, and that's still how the bill is laid out.

If there are extraordinary circumstances, the penalties don't apply. That's pretty straightforward. We are not with this bill putting a burden on Transport Canada, on Nav Canada, or on any of the other agencies that this government uses to oversee air traffic. That's not what's happening here. This bill is about the relationship between the carrier—the business—and the passenger. As such, it can stand by itself. There's no necessity to put blame or put costs on the other organizations. The penalties only exist between the air carrier and the passengers when a commercial operation does not meet the conditions of this bill. That's it.

If Nav Canada makes a ruling that changes the nature of the flight, passengers will not have the opportunity to seek reimbursement from Transport Canada or from Nav Canada; that was not the intent of this bill. If the person who put the bill forward had wanted to include all those agencies in it, that's what would have perhaps happened, but this is not the practice across the world in the aviation business.

So I think this motion is not doing the job. I would much prefer to see a motion that would provide us with some more time to consider this. I know the committee has made choices about the timing of the bill, after a clear vote of approval in principle by the House of Commons on second reading. To my mind, the committee has failed in its obligation to the House of Commons in dealing with this bill. These measures will be viewed in that light not only by me, but I'm certain by many other parties to this issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Volpe's intervention today. I'm going to presume that his position is the same as that of Mr. Kennedy, who is not here today.

I think this is more than just an issue of clarifying the intent of the bill. If I understand Mr. Laframboise's intervention appropriately—and he can correct me, if I'm putting words in his mouth—this goes beyond simply clarifying the intent of a bill. That's not the same as creating a piece of legislation that is structurally sound in all its components. I think that was actually the position of Mr. Byrne, who for the Liberals substituted for Mr. Kennedy a few times at this committee and who envisioned an adjudicating role for the CTA, for example.

The New Democrats' proposing of a whole slew of amendments, although they're cosmetic in nature, is really a candid admission that the bill is fatally flawed, structurally speaking. I think that was more the nature of the intervention, not simply what Mr. Volpe said about clarifying the intent of the bill.

I'll be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

To answer Mr. Bevington, I will repeat that if we are adopting a bill of rights but we add a list of exceptions, so that only one segment of passengers are compensated, that is a very bad message.

I understand what he said because the more he analyzes his bill in depth, the more he will reach the same conclusion as I have: that we must not lead passengers to believe that we are going to solve their problems. This is not the way to solve them. The more witnesses who appeared, the more convinced I became of this. Even if we add 30 more days of debate and call witnesses pro and con the idea, my position will not change.

Certainly it will be possible to introduce other bills, private members' bills, and adjust them accordingly. I have no problem with that, but this one, the way it is drafted... Mr. Maloway's contribution has merit, but we have to examine the problem in depth and take into account how the air transportation system works in Canada. There are independent airport authorities. NAV CANADA is completely independent of the government. These players have to be at the table, if we ever want to discuss passengers' rights.

In my opinion, the best solution is to report to the House of Commons. What we must not do is send a false message. If we do not adopt what I have proposed, we will be giving people the impression that airlines are the only "bad guys". We have to make them understand that the airlines are not the only players in this industry. They should not be the only ones who have to contribute to the solution, some day, when the time comes.

I think this bill does not propose the solution we would like to adopt. When the time comes, all these players have to sit down at the same table to work it out. I made this addition so that people would not think, once again, that the airlines are lobbying us. As I said last time, I didn't need lobbying to understand that the objective of the bill had merit, but when we got to the bottom of things it became clear that the result was not what was expected.

I urge you to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm wondering if Mr. Bevington, with your consent, would be able to.... He raised his hand. I wanted to hear what he had to say in response to Mr. Laframboise. I'd still like my time, but is that possible, just to switch with mine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll move you back down on the list.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I want to thank Mr. Jean for his generosity in allowing me to speak first.

Quite clearly, to bring the other agencies into a discussion of airline passenger rights is a very risky proposition. It's one thing to set up the relationship between an air carrier and its passengers. It's another thing to set up the relationship between Nav Canada, airport managers, airport authorities, and the Department of Transport, with obligations to maintain safety away from the carriers. The thought of a situation where the regulators would be responsible for the cost to the consumer over the decisions they were making about whether a plane would fly or not, whether the conditions on an airport were safe or not, whether any other thing came into it, seems to me almost.... It's a dangerous situation not to have authorities at airports in charge of aviation, authorities who can make a final and definitive decision about whether a plane will fly or not, with no concern about whether they're going to be held responsible in court to uphold that decision.

That's where I would differentiate from the Bloc's position. I don't want regulators to have any doubt about their ability to make decisions for aircraft based on anything other than safety, not on any apprehension that they may be held liable for cost. That is not the way you want to run an aviation system.

Now, the air carriers are responsible to their passengers in a different fashion. They may make decisions to cancel planes more for monetary purposes than for safety purposes, or anything else. I gave evidence of one that occurred to me not a month ago. Those are the types of things people are most concerned about.

To suggest that we're going to enter into a system where the authorities that define the safety and safe flying of aircraft would be in any way responsible for damages because of interrupted flights I think is where you do not want to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.