BQ is a toady for the airline industry?

excerpt: The Liberals supported Maloway's bill from the outset. Interesting.

...I'd want to hear their rationale for their vote first.

Mr. Mario Laframboise:     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

    I understand my colleagues. Some of them have taken a personal stand, like Mr. Maloway and Mr. Byrne, but there is something that bothers me and that I am wondering about. I want the people watching us to understand this clearly. I agree with you: if Bill C-310 is passed in its current form, all the blame will go to the airline companies, and you do not deserve that because there are other bodies in the system that create problems and yet they would not have to comply with the rules.

 

    You referred to NAV Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, the Canada Border Services Agency and airport authorities. These institutions are of paramount importance when it comes to passenger service. Am I wrong?

 

 

Mr. George Petsikas:     You are absolutely right.

 

 

Mr. Mario Laframboise:     If such a bill was ever passed, even if Transport Canada was the adjudicator, it would not change anything. The airline would be guilty and would have to pay. The bill could probably be amended by adding a clause, even if, legally, that would cause problems for the House's legal experts.

 

    We could say that you are not responsible for the problems caused by NAV CANADA, CATSA, CBSA or airport authorities. If that exemption were added, given the agreement that you negotiated with the government, you could probably resolve the other issues amicably with your travellers. That is probably what you do now.

 

    My colleagues need to understand that, by passing this bill, we would be making the airlines selling the plane tickets responsible. The problem is that they would be responsible for things they didn't do. If we don't sit down with all these people at the same table, even if there is an exemption that says that airlines are not responsible for problems caused by airport authorities, the problem experienced by Cubana airlines will not be fixed. It will fix absolutely nothing. If this bill is passed, airlines will have to pay the price for problems caused by airport authorities or other stakeholders.

 

    Have I understood the situation correctly?

 

 

Mr. George Petsikas:     I think that you have fully understood what we are saying. During plane travel in Canada or abroad, there are many stakeholders. Everyone with a direct or indirect impact on the process needs to come together and talk about their responsibilities, their obligations and their potential roles.

 

    I would like to add Transport Canada, which has a direct impact on everything that happens, particularly with regard to standards and hours of service. In order to establish a legislative or regulatory framework that makes sense, we must ensure that this discussion takes place. This was not done with regard to Bill C-310. That was a missed opportunity. That is why we are saying that things need to be done over again but in the right way. We are prepared to take part in that exercise and to have a serious discussion.

 

    We need to take into consideration the factors that were mentioned earlier. Obviously, we cannot undermine security; nor must we try to pin the blame on anyone; we need to find a way to improve the consumer's experience and, if something is not working, try to provide them with fair and reasonable compensation, without costing the system a fortune. Unfortunately, that is not what we see here. I think that you have understood what is happening.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):     Thank you very much, Mr. Maloway, for your presentation.

 

    You stated at the outset that your bill had obtained the support of the Bloc Québécois. You know, because of the speech that I made in the House of Commons, that we are in favour of having your bill studied by the committee to try to improve it. Earlier, our Liberal colleague spoke of the Air Cubana situation, where several Quebeckers were stuck on board the aircraft on the tarmac at Ottawa International Airport. As you know, this situation was due to weather conditions. I wrote directly to the airline company, which in turn wrote directly to the airport authority and Transport Canada, and at this time, no one has accepted responsibility for this incident.

 

    When you introduced your bill, it was supposed to solve this problem, according to what we had heard. Of course, clause 6 of the bill deals with the rights of passengers on the ground at an aerodrome, but it only targets air carriers. I must tell you that, in Air Cubana's case, I am far from convinced that it was the fault of the airline company. I would say that it was the airport authority that did not do its job. Your bill focuses on making airline companies accountable, but in Canada, as you know, airport authorities control air traffic, decide on what happens and assign space, and the bill contains no measures to make them accountable for all of this.

 

    So I understand why air carriers complained that it is always up to them to pay for everything, when in Canada, many of the requirements and control measures are administered by a non-governmental organization. We must keep in mind that airport authorities, which are responsible for de-icing in airports and providing access rights, are overseen by boards of directors made up of people from the sector.

 

    In this regard, I find that ADM in Montreal, is problematic. In the past, appointed directors were allowed to raise airport improvement fees as they saw fit; now they can borrow money as they see fit as well, but they have no sense of responsibility with regard to the problems that they sometimes cause. Does your bill deal with the accountability of airport authorities?

[English]

 

 

Mr. Jim Maloway:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

    With regard to the Cubana flight, that was actually detailed in a CBC program last night, but there's been considerable coverage of the Cubana situation going back two years now. That is a terrible example of people being confined on a runway for something like 15 hours. Yes, it does point to the fact that there is more than just one body involved here, but I would suggest that shouldn't stop us from passing an air passenger bill of rights mandating that the airlines have to let people off the airplanes within one hour, under penalty, because when a law like this becomes the law, then the airports and customs people have to adjust their practices.

 

    In the United States right now we have similar types of legislation before both houses. What's happening concurrently with that is people like Jim Crites, who's head of the airport authority in Dallas-Forth Worth, are responding in their own way. He is making certain that his airport, and Atlanta, have purchased buses in order to get people off diverted flights in a very quick and efficient manner. They are now constructing buildings on the airport site to house people from diverted flights because it seems that diverted flights are increasing in number.

 

     Just two weeks ago in Ottawa, Air Canada flight 32 was diverted from Beijing, China, to Toronto. Do you know that this plane was seven and a half hours late at the end of the day? It was diverted right here in Ottawa. When I checked into it, I found out they got here at eight o'clock at night, but those poor people were kept on that plane until at least eleven o'clock at night. This is after 15 hours or more from Beijing before they were actually let off that plane. Then they were taken into Toronto and they got there around two in the morning. These things are happening right now.

 

    This is an Air Canada plane, the same airline that says they can let you off a plane within 90 minutes. They're clearly not doing it, because there's no penalty for them if they don't do it.

 

    I agree with you, sir, it's a combination of responsibilities, but we have to proceed on the basis of this bill, and then perhaps a second bill for some other purpose.

   (1555)  

[Translation]

 

 

Mr. Mario Laframboise:     Mr. Maloway, your bill will not solve the Cubana situation. That's what I wanted to say to you, that it will not solve such incidents. It may make airline companies accountable, and if so, then we will follow you in this debate.

 

    The Bloc Québécois called on the government to introduce its own bill, because we wanted to solve the Cubana situation. We need a very in-depth analysis from Transport Canada to determine who is responsible for what. I have analyzed the Cubana situation. There were Quebeckers on board. I read the letters of all those involved. No one is claiming responsibility for anything. But at the end of the day, travellers were stuck on an aircraft for 17 hours. In my opinion, the airport authority had a share of the responsibility. The government should have introduced a bill. We'll see.

 

    My problem is that your bill does not solve the Cubana situation. I can't amend it. As you know, it is a private member's bill. The penalties can always be adjusted if we feel they are too harsh or not harsh enough, but I cannot make any amendments to the bill. If I included the airport authorities, it would be ruled out of order by the House of Commons law clerk. That's what I want you to understand. You must not believe that this will solve a problem like the Cubana incident. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that your bill will not solve the Cubana situation.

Question: was this thread started for any other reason than to attack other posters?

But it does look to me very likely that the BQ is shilling for Air Canada...