:
Thank you and good afternoon.
This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 28. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, are for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill .
We have our witnesses joining us again today. I don't think I need to introduce everyone. I think everyone is familiar. Welcome again today.
(On clause 11)
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, colleagues.
I was hoping the committee would be able to consider the amendments on pages 13 and 13.1 in tandem, Mr. Chair, because they are linked to the overall reporting requirements of the department and the minister--well, the minister first and the department second, I suppose.
It is a proposal that we vary the reporting requirements by maintaining the minister's responsibility to keep annual the review of the overall goings-on of the transport sector in the country, as opposed to every three years, which is what is proposed in the bill.
There are a few reasons that I think this is important for us to consider. One is it's clear to all of us as MPs and as Canadians that we're seeing increasing evidence of stressors and evidence of infrastructure deficits right across the country in federal, provincial, and municipal infrastructure settings. In fact, it's becoming a bit of an egregious problem for Canadians.
The second reason I think it's important is that Canada is urbanizing faster than we ever expected it to; in 100 years we've really gone from a 10% urban society to an almost 90% urban society. The transport infrastructure in particular, then, is going to be increasingly put to the test. We're seeing an increased incidence of flights, so much so that many of my neighbours describe our modern airports as modern bus stations. I think it might be helpful for Canadians if there were a yearly opportunity for us as MPs and for Canadians generally to be informed of the overall situation and status of transport in the country.
I'm also proposing here, Mr. Chair, in amendment L-1.1, taking into consideration the onerous nature of this annual report--which I assume is the rationale for moving from one year to three years--that more emphasis be placed on a fifth-year report every five years. Under amendment L-1.1, the minister would expand the scope of the report to look at some longer-term perspectives, some longer-term trends, and take a longer-term look at the transport industry--for example, rail, trucking, and so on and so forth.
It mitigates concerns I think that an annual industry review alone is too focused on yearly changes, Mr. Chair, as opposed to tracking trends. I think I spoke to the same kind of rationale earlier when it came to the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner's role of tracking trends over time, as opposed to reporting on isolated complaints or isolated complaints that have been resolved there.
That's what I wanted to submit to the committee under amendments L-1 and L-1.1.
:
The wording that exists in the act today is what's under subsection 52(1). I can read it for you. In the act today, it says:
Each year the Minister shall, before the end of May, lay before Parliament a report briefly reviewing the state of transportation in Canada in respect of the preceding year
It then has paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) under it.
We have in fact strengthened proposed subsection 52(2) to say it's going to be a comprehensive review. It will be expanded and will be a comprehensive review, and proposed subsection 52(1) is what would be the brief review that really reports on the actual data and statistics.
I'd like to understand why the amended version of proposed paragraph 52(2)(c.1) is (c.1) and not (d). For example, where you had (a), (b), (c), and (d) before, it seems to me that “the long-term outlook and trends in transportation” is not a subset of the degree to which they receive compensation directly and indirectly; it's the broader picture, and therefore it should be a subsection unto itself.
:
The reason it's not amended proposed paragraph (d) in and of itself, but is instead amended proposed paragraph (c.1), doesn't diminish the fact that it's a separate one. It's just that, as a drafting technique, you don't want to change and renumber a proposed paragraph. In future years, if somebody does research in terms of what was done under the old law, for example, paragraph 52(2)(d) would be consistent in time.
If you add in a paragraph, the technique is to add a point one, point two, point three, etc., in between. That doesn't diminish the fact that the paragraph stands on its own. It's just that it has been interceded between two other paragraphs and it was numbered as a point-something. It's purely a drafting technique. It has no bearing on the substance whatsoever.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment stems from a concern about vesting the minister with a serious new power, which is to review mergers and acquisitions beyond airlines in the transport sector, in federally regulated transport areas. The problem that some of us are having at the table, Mr. Chair, is that we're not sure what criteria the minister might intend to use in the review of any kind of merger or acquisition that he's being empowered to review.
I'm sure we recollect receiving a serious memo from the Competition Bureau about these provisions, raising concerns about this new power being vested in the minister and whether or not this power in any way contradicts the power or the target of the Competition Act and the role of the Commissioner of Competition to oversee all mergers and acquisitions in a Canadian context.
At first blush, when I first read this as part of , I was quite surprised. Unless counsel can point us in some direction, I haven't found in the federal system—which doesn't mean it doesn't exist—other areas where line department ministers have been given authority for this mergers and acquisitions types of power, which seems to be in direct conflict, or at least side by side, with the power of the Competition Bureau under the Competition Act.
What I'm trying to do is simply ask that the minister clarify, in a public way, the criteria that would be applied by the minister in making a decision about a merger or acquisition in the Canadian context. Maybe we ought to be examining what criteria are being used by this minister, whoever that person is and in whatever period of time going forward, and the criteria that are being used and applied under the Competition Act. If we have two separate bodies in the federal family conducting precisely the same review of mergers and acquisitions, using the same criteria or slightly varied criteria, what's the point? Why are we vesting this new power in the minister in the first place? That's what the amendment is trying to do.
:
I would like to clarify that this provision was in fact developed jointly with the Competition Bureau. We've had numerous discussions with them in all iterations of the bill.
The purpose of the provision is not to duplicate what the Competition Bureau normally does in reviewing a merger or acquisition proposal. What it proposes to do is look at factors beyond the competition factors that the bureau looks at. They normally look at the impact on services, the impact on prices, the impact of competitiveness. They take a very economic look at it.
The power the minister would be looking at would be the public interest as it relates to transportation. It would be factors, for example, such as the impact on safety issues or the impact on the functionality of the other modes. For example, if you have a merger in the railways, which was a potential happening in 2000, how would that impact the functioning of the ports, because the ports rely on the railways? We need to take all those other aspects into account, like the labour force and things like that.
They are not meant to duplicate. The applicants for a merger will continue to provide the Competition Bureau with the information it requires, and these guidelines would set out the information that the minister will require for these other factors.
You know, when you read the rest of this particular clause, it goes on to provide for extensive consultation and dovetailing of the jurisdictions of the commissioner and the minister. So I'm not sure it's a concern that is necessarily valid. I don't want to waste the committee's time by reading through 53.1, 53.2, and all the way through to 53.5 and 53.6, etc. If you read them carefully, there's significant dovetailing of those functions between the minister and the commissioner.
Secondly, my concern, Mr. Chair, is that when we move from general legislation towards guidelines, and then, further, to criteria, despite what some might think, we're actually limiting the scope of the legislation. We actually tie government's hands to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians.
I spent years drafting legal documents. I know the dangers of becoming too specific, especially when it's legislation, not just contractual. Down the road, you'll find yourself in a situation where these criteria are actually used to argue against the public interest by those wishing to undertake mergers and acquisitions. I caution this committee about going down this road. It's dangerous, and we may live to regret it.
:
I just want to go to Mr. Fast's point.
Here is the memo received from Mr. D'Amore to all members of the committee and analysts. It's the brief prepared by the Competition Bureau of Canada with regard to Bill , dated November 6, 2006. It was sent to the chair, in fact. There are three aspects of the bill that are focused on. I assume every member has seen this and read it. There are some very serious concerns put forward by the Competition Bureau.
I don't want to read the brief, Mr. Chair. I assume everyone has seen this.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to confirm a couple of things. First of all, I mentioned that the powers already exist for air transportation modes, but this would actually expand it to all modes of transportation in Canada. Quite frankly, this is identical language to what the Liberals proposed in Bill .
The other issue is that there are two perspectives in relation to these transactions. First, the Competition Bureau looks at the issue of competition in the marketplace, whereas the Minister of Transportation looks at the public interest good.
Mr. McGuinty, in relation to your other point about transparency and accountability--and I don't believe this has been said so far--we on the government side would be open to a compromise on having the minister make public the guidelines on information regarding the public interest. However, as Mr. Scott could probably attest as a former minister, a minister does need some amount of discretion in relation to the criteria and the decision itself, but certainly making public those criteria and the decision itself would alleviate the concerns Mr. McGuinty has put forward.
Does that answer your question, Mr. McGuinty?
Again, this is simply in reference to strengthening the language in clause 17. Currently the clause would read as follows:
A licensee shall provide an opportunity for elected officials of the municipal or local government of the community...to meet and discuss with the licensee the impact of the proposed discontinuance or reduction.
In the case of air service, this would require the obligation that as soon as practicable, the licensee would provide that opportunity to elected officials to do so. We believe the language is stronger and would push that consultation to take place as quickly as possible, or as soon as practicable, rather than leaving it open, as it is in the current wording.
Regarding the same proposed subsection, to replace section 64 of the Canada Transportation Act, essentially it is now worded as follows:
This section does not apply to a licensee that operates a domestic service that is seasonal in nature for eight months or less in a 12-month period.
It would strengthen the language to restrict this exception to only smaller communities. A community of more than 10,000 people, even with the seasonal service, would see the obligation for the consultation.
:
Actually, the government is not in favour of this amendment for several reasons, Mr. Chair.
The first is that it would dramatically drive up the cost of tracking. Indeed, it's an arbitrary number that doesn't really have relevance to any particular criteria. It's unknown why that number was picked. Why is it not 20,000? Why is it not 30,000? Why is it not 5,000? Indeed, I think it brings about other issues, such as whether this includes peak seasons, or peak season populations in such places as the mountains where there is skiing, or whether it includes the local population.
I would suggest that this is for seasonal operators. This arbitrary number doesn't really accomplish anything. Rather than making it stronger, I would suggest that in fact it weakens it, and indeed drives up costs, without really accomplishing anything, for seasonal operators.
:
What this is trying to address is the issue of not going through the appropriate process for discontinuance when it is a seasonal service. Essentially, what this would do is create an obligation for larger communities, even if it is a seasonal service, to go through that consultation process in the case of a discontinuance or a reduction in service.
Is 10,000 an arbitrary number? It is, because it's a round number. Could it be amended to reflect smaller communities? I believe that's where you're going, Mr. McGuinty, and I would certainly support that. Essentially, what we're saying is that when there's a seasonal service being offered in communities of a certain size, there is an obligation, when there is a reduction or discontinuing of service, to go through a consultative process.
:
Mr. Chair, I have just a couple of questions, again to Mr. Julian.
We had numerous witnesses here, and I don't believe I missed any meetings at which witnesses appeared. Is there something the witnesses said that would have driven you to propose this amendment? I didn't hear it. Quite aside from the arbitrary nature of the 10,000 number, I didn't hear any of the witnesses raise the concern that you've raised.
Secondly, one of the purposes of revisiting this legislation is to simplify and presumably also to reduce the cost burden, not only for industry, but also for government. If you could answer that, I'd also appreciate a follow-up from staff as to whether they would expect this would drive up costs for government, because we're introducing a whole new element of supervision and monitoring here. I'm concerned it's going to be counterproductive to what we're actually trying to do with this bill.
Quite frankly, we didn't have northern communities and remote communities represented here, so I think it would be a question that this committee could have put. I think we had very extensive consultations, but we didn't consult northern and remote communities to the same extent. So it's fair to say that if we brought those communities here, I think the concerns would be very valid. As a result of that, we thought of tabling this amendment in order to provide some sort of structure when there is reduction or discontinuation of services, even in a seasonal context. So it's important to provide some mechanism.
I don't see this as a huge cost component. It simply says providing:
an opportunity for elected officials of the municipal or local government of the community...to meet and discuss with the licensee the impact of the proposed discontinuance or reduction.
We're not talking about a huge royal commission. We're talking about meeting with local officials, and maybe finding solutions to that discontinuance or reduction that would allow that community to continue the service in some way, even in the off season.
:
The entire nature of a seasonal business is just that. I think communities welcome, benefit, and appreciate that business. I think there's generally a very good rapport between seasonal business operators and the community because of the interdependence of their activities.
That said, in terms of cost considerations, the agency currently issues licences on the basis of scope of operation. And that's for all of Canada. They do not distinguish whether an operator is only travelling a very short distance between two points or long distances between two points. When we introduce a component, as is proposed here, that has a population measure, it introduces a new element. That isn't something the agency tracks. That isn't currently a part of what's tagged as part of issuing the licence. Therefore, that requirement imposes an additional tagging requirement, tracking requirement, and ensuring compliance.
It also introduces a certain amount of ambiguity for the seasonal operators, who may question whether in fact they fit within the 10,000 criteria. To be on the safe side, they may choose to go through the painful process of seeking an exemption nevertheless. It introduces ambiguity. And with that ambiguity, there's additional cost. There's a cost to the agency, but there's also a cost to the operator.
:
Mr. Chair, I'm curious about the cost it would take to operate something like this. I know the department probably doesn't have any good figures.
I think Mr. Julian is proposing to keep the legislation as it is, in essence, because there are no communities, or very few in my mind, that are over 10,000 and have seasonal operators.
Am I correct in that assumption?
:
Under the current legislation, if a business wishes to suspend its operations because of the cyclical or seasonal nature of the service, two things must be taken into consideration.
I'll answer in English.
[English]
They can allow their insurance to lapse. It's a cheap way of doing things. If they do not have valid insurance, they cannot have a valid licence and they cannot operate. Some cyclical operators do that. It's easy. Others, for whatever reason, choose to keep their insurance up to date. Even if they have a seasonal operation, they pay insurance at whatever rate for the entire year, but they don't wish to have their licence necessarily operational. They therefore seek an exemption from the agency in terms of offering services to these communities. They don't wish to operate on a year-round, continuous basis, and they seek a discontinuation of their licence. The agency normally has to consider the merits of that proposal. So there is both the application process by the seasonal operator and there is the consideration of the agency of whether to accept it or not.
What we're proposing is that those seasonal operators would no longer be subject to that process. They would be carved out and exempted. They could operate a seasonal operation, on a seasonal basis, as long as they have a valid licence, without having to seek an exemption from the agency to terminate that operation on a seasonal basis.
:
Sorry, but the point I was trying to make earlier in regard to Mr. Julian's 10,000-person cut-off is based on my own personal experience. I spent three years in and out of the Northwest Territories, travelling to places where there are 700 people or 500 people or 1,200 people. The question of access by air, seasonal or otherwise, is a very important question.
What do they say about this? What has the agency or the department done to talk to the dozens of communities across this country that don't live within a four-hour driving proximity or bus proximity of a major airport? How do they get around? How do they get their goods?
You mentioned earlier that there's a positive working relationship with these carriers, these seasonal carriers, anyway with these communities. If that's the case, why wouldn't those carriers not agree with this kind of proposed amendment?
:
I have no doubt that this is going to cost more money. I have no doubt that this is going to take more work on behalf of the agency. None at all. But I think the import of this is a question of equity. I'm trying to get to a question of equity as a Canadian citizen if you have standards that don't apply equally across the board at a time when rural Canada is hemorrhaging to death and hollowing out.
If you were to take five community leaders from 500-person communities or 2,000-person communities, many of which we represent—particularly those of us who have catchment areas in rural areas—and put this question to them, what do you think they might say about this particular amendment put forward by Mr. Julian, about the need for consultation to be caught in this bill? They have to sit down with affected communities before either exempting themselves, which is the process today, either by letting their insurance lapse.... I understand the technique. But what I'm trying to get to is whether we are wrong in assuming, or whether I'm wrong in assuming, that affected communities here, at a time when the gap between urban and rural Canada is large.... We all live it. Am I missing something here?
:
Small carriers that serve communities, small or large, all year round are not exempted from the requirements for the 120-day service. What we are proposing is for those carriers that provide a seasonal service to a community of any size. It could be a community of 10,000, it could be a community of 20,000, or it could be a community of 50,000. All of these, I think we would say, are small communities for whom the business, whether it's cyclical or temporary, is a very important economic contributor.
Having said that, we've said that because of the particular requirements of the seasonal operation industry, which is cyclical, and because of the fact that under the way in which the legislation is drafted at the present time, seasonal operators have to seek an exemption from the agency in order to terminate their licences, that introduces a certain inefficiency. It's something they would do anyway. It's something they do because the service they provide is a seasonal service. It is not a year-round service. That's the reason why they're seeking the exemption.
For services that are year-round to small communities, the advance notice will continue to be there. I think this measure, by carving out the seasonal element, does in fact take a very unbiased approach to all of the small communities that benefit from seasonal activity, not just the very few under a certain population threshold that might benefit from seasonal activity. This is a more generic and broader-based benefit, in my view.
:
As against having to seek an exemption from....
So in terms of the obligation on the carrier, I don't agree necessarily with Mr. Carrier. I think what's happening is there is an effort being made to relieve them of being caught in a regulation that is deemed necessary to deal with ceasing a service. So I'm not sure how you split this.
I agree with Mr. Julian on this point. I don't believe it is invisible to the communities, because, for instance, for whatever the reason that a permanent carrier would be asked to explain themselves, there may be a need to ask a seasonal carrier to explain themselves as well.
It's not all rural and remote. The carrier that is delivering Japanese tourists to Charlottetown...it's not a rural or remote community; it's a seasonal service. It's the tourist season, but it's a seasonal service. And the community of Charlottetown may have questions of the carrier as to why they picked the peak period in the shoulder season. I think that's a legitimate question. They no longer will have to explain themselves to anybody, because before they would have had to seek an exception and now they don't.
So it's a legitimate question as to whether or not the carrier should be relieved of having to explain themselves to the community in many instances. We've gone from perhaps too much requirement on the seasonal carrier to too little. Is that correct?
A voice: Yes.
Hon. Andy Scott: So absent of an alternative to Mr. Julian's amendment, I'd have to support Mr. Julian, although I don't necessarily like the population piece.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the members of this committee for their deep concern for rural communities, which I represent. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Scott is saying, but I do have a serious problem when we start putting arbitrary numbers on this, like 10,000 people. I really think that's a major issue.
One of the things I would like to ask of the department is whether we know how many exemptions have been given per year and how many interventions by communities have been requested.
:
I would tend to agree more with Mr. Julian. I would advise the government and Mr. Jean to be very careful, for safety reasons. I have safety concerns about licensees requesting that their licence be suspended for a certain period of time. I'd like the government to consider this, because I'm not sure that your amendment . . . However, I can see how this might save you some time, from an administrative standpoint.
The problem, for me and for the public, is knowing whether it's important, for security considerations, to know which companies are suspended their operations and thus have no insurance. I think that at this point in time, it might be better for us to continue monitoring these individuals and require them to notify us when service is suspended, so that we know which companies are insured, in case of an accident occurs and the carrier continues to operate.
Otherwise, it means that these persons can at any time suspend their operations and cancel their insurance, and no one would know when or how this came about. I'd like us to take a closer look at this.
Perhaps you can return for our next meeting. I can understand how this would mean less work and how it would be easier for everyone. But, would it be safer? You can't convince me of that. I'd like the government to study this issue, because I'm convinced that safety is important to the Conservative government. I'm simply wondering if it's not important for us to monitor these individuals.
:
Mr. Chair, my difficulty with this.... I think I have a pretty good handle on seasonal service in the north, in rural communities. I have some communities that have absolutely about three weeks of service by road, and the only way they can get their goods is by plane. For instance, Fort Chipewyan has seasonal operations, and a lot of people go in there to fish, but it's a very difficult time to fish in the middle of winter when there are four feet of ice on the lake.
I think what it's going to do, if this amendment passes that Mr. Julian has put forward, is it's going to restrict operators from actually trying out seasonal operations in the north. What I'm curious about, since the main concern seems to be rural communities and their expression of dissatisfaction with the cut-off of seasonal air service, is whether the department can tell us how many communities have actually expressed, over the last five years, concerns about seasonal operators discontinuing the service to them.
:
Basically, what the licensee wants is to suspend operations so that he no longer has to pay insurance, which accounts for the bulk of his costs.
You're saying that in the past, when his insurance lapsed, the licensee would give notice to the agency to suspend his licence. Automatically, his insurance lapsed. Now, you're saying that as soon as his insurance lapses, the agency will be notified. When I mention the safety of the public, it's not that I think the airplane could crash. However, it's important that passengers who board an airplane have insurance coverage. If ever that wasn't the case, because no follow up was done, then the passenger would not be able to take legal action against the operator, because the latter is no longer insured. And we would have been the ones responsible for having authorized that.
I felt that the existing system reassured the public that the operator was licensed and that passengers were covered by insurance in the event of an accident. Now you're saying that passengers would be covered in any case since the agency is notified as soon as the licensee allows his insurance to lapse.
:
I don't think we have to make this too detailed. We can phone people in a couple of communities that get discontinued service and start-up service and talk directly with them. I'm sensing there's a concern about the small communities.
I represent small communities, and I've also represented communities that rely on services on a seasonal basis. My sense is that if I'm an operator looking at some of the details and difficulties I have to go through in a process, it influences my decision on whether to even try to apply the service.
So we could get feedback from those communities, perhaps in areas where there are fly-in services over a very short period of time. I may be wrong, but I'm even thinking about winter roads. The only reason they extend the service on those kinds of things is because the conditions prevail and allow them to happen. If not, a person is pretty regulated by the conditions.
Mr. McGuinty.
:
We would prefer language that retains flexibility for the agency. The flexibility is very important. We've used the “efficiency” word a lot, and we come back to it again in this particular case.
It's interesting to think of what the implications would be if we had an obligation, a “shall”,
[Translation]
as proposed.
[English]
It's at the low end. Right now there is a certain number of complaints that the agency can dismiss fairly quickly without need for review in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Some of those complaints are purely frivolous or vexatious in nature and get dismissed very quickly. Under the proposed wording, they would have to be given full consideration.
Certain other complaints are dismissed. Roughly 20% of the 1,300 complaints received are generally found in favour of the carrier very quickly, without a great deal of analysis. In this case the agency is very familiar with perhaps the tariffs and the terms and conditions of the carrier and can see very quickly that the complaint will be in favour of the carrier. Again, those are dismissed without much review in an attempt to resolve the complaint.
Similarly, if we look at level one and level two complaints, level one complaints, as I think the agency explained when they appeared as witnesses, really involve the agency acting as a post box. They don't review. They don't attempt to resolve. They simply, in the first instance, if a complainant has not done so himself or herself, would forward the complaint to the carrier for response.
In a post box function, what they find is that 70% of level one complaints are resolved with the carrier. So they are never reviewed and attempted, and only 30% of level one complaints go to that more additional due diligence. It means that the agency can put its attention on those cases that demand the most analysis and due diligence.
That's at one end, those complaints that do not require a great deal of detailed analysis or review. At the other end, the agency does receive some complaints that are considered very serious. These are complaints that deal with issues like unruly conduct that may create safety risks on an aircraft. They relate to things like unreasonable tariffs, potentially the discontinuance of service, undue obstacle in terms of disabilities.
These are complaints that the agency views with a great deal of seriousness, and they may choose to move them immediately into the formal review process rather than go through the informal review process. Again, if we had the “shall review and attempt to resolve”, it would slow down the consideration of serious proposals that come in and that the agency wants to look at very quickly.
A third area that causes us concern in terms of the language of “shall” instead of “may” relates to instances where carriers go bankrupt and are no longer functioning. Again, if we have a “shall” requirement, the agency may be forced to continue to look at those complaints, even when the carrier no longer exists. The current situation is that those complaints are dropped.
All of those elements, to us, argue very strongly for the “may” language, to retain flexibility so that the agency can put its resources where it can do the most benefit in terms of due diligence, rather than putting scarce resources into looking into complaints that perhaps do not merit the informal process.
:
The problem is that the provision is currently worded as follows: “The Agency, or a person authorized to act on the Agency's behalf, may review [...] ”. What if the agency chooses not to review the complaint? I can understand your telling the complainant that his complaint is frivolous, but as I see it, you have a duty to review the complaint. It's fine if you decide the complaint is frivolous, but I can't see the agency not reviewing the complaint at all. I can't understand that.
When I'm asking you to review a complaint, I'm not asking you to resolve it, to launch an investigation or to mediate the situation. If you receive a complaint and tell the complainant that his complaint is frivolous, that's fine. I'm sure some complaints do indeed fall into that category. However, if you're telling me that some complaints are not even reviewed, then I do have a problem with that.
The wording “The Agency [...] may review” implies that some complaints are not reviewed at all. If that's the case, I want to know which ones are not reviewed. Otherwise, I feel it is your privilege and duty to review all complaints, even if you ultimately find that some are frivolous. In the process, if the complainant is not satisfied, then he can always appeal. However, to say “may review” implies that some complaints will not be addressed at all. That doesn't sit well with me.
:
Actually, those are two points that I was going to make as well, Mr. Chair.
I'm wondering what the department's response would be if proposed subsection (3) were amended to indeed force the agency to review it. If the word “shall” were put into subsection (3)--so if the complainant asked for the complaint to be dealt with under this provision the department “shall”, or would be forced to do so--would that be better? Because then it would be a tier two complaint, and indeed the 70% wouldn't fall under that gambit, so for anybody who is not satisfied, the department would be forced to deal with it under that.
Would that be satisfactory? I'm wondering if that would meet the compromise of Monsieur Laframboise.
:
I'd like to propose a subamendment, because I can well understand Mr. Laframboise's concern. I propose that we add the word “may” after “and”, so that the provision would read like this:
85.1(1) The Agency, or a person authorized to act on the Agency's behalf, shall review and may attempt to resolve the complaint [...]
Thus, the review process would be mandatory, but not the actual resolution of the complaint. Admittedly, section 85.1(3) provides for possible follow-up action.
I completely agree with Mr. Laframboise that provision must be made to ensure that all complaints are required to be reviewed and dealt with. That's very important and the Bloc's amendment attempts to do just that. In the bill, the word “shall” qualifies both “review” and “attempt”. Perhaps the word could be made to qualify only the second verb, namely “attempt”. The provision would then read “may attempt to resolve the complaint”.
:
Maybe I haven't properly explained the way the current process works.
There are two levels of complaints. Level one complaints received by the agency are not reviewed. They are handled in much the same way that a post office would handle them. They are read and forwarded to the air carriers who look at them and try to resolve the problem. That's the first stage in the process.
The agency is subsequently advised of the outcome of this process which, in most cases, is positive. Only 30% of complaints go on to become level two complaints. At this stage in the process, the agency conducts a more thorough review and attempts to grasp and resolve the problem. If the agency was required to subject all level one complaints -- and we're talking here about nearly 600 complaints -- to this degree of scrutiny, the task would be onerous indeed.
Regardless, I want you to know that we do take note of every new complaint.
:
The agency is an administrative tribunal. Consequently, regardless of the wording used in the act, the agency cannot exercise its discretion and decide not to deal with a complaint. The provisions of the Transportation Act respecting the powers of the agency do not stipulate that the agency must review complaints. The agency is a tribunal, which means that when it receives a complaint, it is judicially obligated to take note of the complaint and to act on it.
What you're saying is true, but if you're concerned that for whatever reason, the agency does not deal with certain complaints, then I can tell you that this is not the case. In my estimation, that concern is unfounded. As an administrative tribunal, the agency is obligated to take note of all complaints filed and to take steps to address them.
:
According to the explanations provided by Ms. Gravitis-Beck, you proceed in the exact same way as is being proposed in the amendment, and in Mr. Julian's subamendment.
The complaint is reviewed to some degree before going on to the second stage. It may then be reviewed more thoroughly, or a simple acknowledgement may be sent to the complainant. The fact remains that we want some assurance that every complaint is at least reviewed. That's all the text of the amendment says.
When the amendment was drafted, I was tempted to insist on the use of the words “doit examiner”. Ultimately, I settled for the word “examine”.
Just going back to Monsieur Laframbroise's concern, then, as it's presently drafted, would compel the agency—no matter who's in charge of it, what president, what CEO, what budget it was working with—to conduct its affairs this way. In the future, three years or five years from now, could someone say, “That's enough, we're not going to treat level one complaints the same way we've been treating them for the past five years”?