Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue 20 - Evidence


OTTAWA, Thursday, March 11, 1999

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-23, to amend the Carriage by Air Act to give effect to a Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air and to give effect to the Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier, met this day at 11:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

[English]

Mr. Michel Patrice, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, it is my duty to inform the committee that the chair and deputy chair are unavoidably absent. As clerk of the your committee, it now becomes my duty to preside over the election of an acting chair.

Senator Fitzpatrick: I move that the Honourable Senator Poulin be appointed acting chairman of the committee for this meeting.

Mr. Patrice: Honourable senators, you have heard the motion. Is it your pleasure, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Mr. Patrice: I call on Senator Poulin to take the Chair.

Senator Marie-P. Poulin (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.

The Acting Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. We are here to review Bill S-23.

Our first witnesses today will be public servants from Transport Canada, from the Department of Justice and from the Department of National Defence. I believe that the leader of the team is Madam Valérie Dufour from Transport Canada.

Welcome, and please proceed.

Ms Valérie Dufour, Director, Air Policy, Transport Canada: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to you about Bill S-23, the purpose of which is to amend the Carriage by Air Act.

I will be elaborating on the remarks made by Senator De Bané in introducing this bill for second reading a few weeks ago.

We have provided you with background documents on the international context of this bill and the Carriage by Air Act, which are included in your briefing book.

Let me begin with the Carriage by Air Act. It is a short act, having only six sections. What it does is implement the Warsaw Convention and the amending Hague Protocol in Canada, and allows Canada to become a party to these instruments.

These two documents are widely recognized international conventions regulating the international transportation of passengers, baggage and cargo. Specifically, they set out common rules respecting the liability of a carrier in the event of the death of, or injury to, passengers, or loss of baggage or cargo.

The Warsaw Convention was signed in 1929 and the amending Hague Protocol was signed in 1955.

In Canada, the Carriage by Air Act was enacted in 1947 to give the federal government the authority to ratify the Warsaw Convention, which was annexed to the act as Schedule I.

Schedule II was added to the act to set out the applicable Canadian rules for those situations where the Warsaw Convention provides that the law of the state where the action is taken will govern.

The Carriage by Air Act was last amended in 1963 to authorize the federal government to implement the Hague Protocol, which was then added to the act as Schedule III. Canada ratified the Hague Protocol in April 1964.

The briefing book you have contains summaries, as well as the full text, of each of these three documents, and they are at Tab E.

The original Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol and a series of other international instruments dealing with the same subjects make up what is known as the Warsaw System. In the background documentation at Tab H, you will find a listing of what constitutes the system and a chart showing the links between the various international instruments, whether they have come into force or not.

In that list, you will see the two international instruments that are addressed in Bill S-23, the Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Convention. You will also find included a short description of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

It has the responsibility to oversee and advance the cause of a uniform international liability regime for passengers, baggage and cargo carried by air. It is for that reason that there is included a working paper from the September 1988 triennial assembly of ICAO related to the ongoing work of its legal commission in modernizing the liability limits that are covered in the Warsaw system.

Although this work is underway, states are still being asked to adhere to current elements of the system. That is why we are here, seeking the authority to allow Canada to adhere to the two instruments that are covered by the bill before you.

My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about any or all of these documents to assist you in understanding the context of what is being asked in Bill S-23. This bill seeks to amend the Carriage by Air Act to allow Canada to accede to Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Convention, two more recent international instruments that update and modernize the Warsaw Convention.

This has become more important than previously, because Montreal Protocol No. 4 came into force in June 1998 and took effect in the United States on March 4 of this year. That means that, until such time as it is in effect in Canada, U.S. carriers and shippers will have a commercial advantage over Canadian shippers and carriers with respect to the electronic dissemination of airway bills in the cargo area.

Before you proceed to clause-by-clause review of the proposed amendments, let me make a few general remarks about what the amendments to the Carriage by Air Act are intended to do.

First, the text, which will still be only six sections in length, will be clearer because two important definitions will have been put at the beginning of the act.

Second, the text will have been rendered gender neutral, in keeping with current practice.

Third, the formula for the establishment of the Canadian dollar equivalents of Francs for special drawing rights will have been clarified.

Fourth, references to the new Schedule IV and Schedule V will have been added, where appropriate.

Fifth, a section dealing with when the amended act will come into force will have been added.

Finally, Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Convention will be annexed as Schedules IV and V.

Let me say a few words about each of the two new schedules.

I might add that we inadvertently switched their numbering in the briefing book so, while in the printed bill they are Schedule IV and Schedule V, they are the opposite in the briefing text.

Schedule IV, Montreal Protocol No. 4, amends the instruments of the Warsaw system in relation to the transportation of cargo. It simplifies the requirements for cargo documentation and allows for the transmission of the information now included on multi-copy airway bills by other means, including electronic transmission.

Just for your general sense of what an airway bill is, we put one in the back of the briefing book so that you can see how many copies we are talking about and all the documentation that can be substituted now for electronic means.

The ability to transmit shipping information electronically is expected to produce significant cost savings for carriers and shippers. The International Air Transport Association estimates the average savings per airway bill to be around $10.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 also amends the liability regime for cargo with stricter carrier liability and with maximum limits. It provides that the carrier is liable for damages to cargo to the limits of liability, expressed as special drawing rights, but only to those limits once damages have been established. As a result, the carrier cannot escape liability by taking all necessary precautions and the claimant cannot recover more than the limit amount even if there has been gross negligence.

This protocol, signed in 1975, only came into effect in June 1998, when the requisite minimum number of 30 states had deposited their instruments of ratification. As mentioned earlier, it now becomes imperative that Canada be in a position to ratify as soon as possible, to ensure that our carriers remain competitive. At the end of tab F you will find a list of the states that have ratified this protocol at the end of 1998.

The second convention, Schedule V, Guadalajara, first signed in 1961, clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers on the one hand and carriers on the other. It is already widely in force and it clarifies the application of the Warsaw system to situations where the contract of carriage was made by a carrier that did not actually perform some or all of the carriage by air.

The convention distinguishes between the contracting carrier and the carrier actually performing the carriage on its behalf and sets out the varying liabilities of each. As a consequence, the convention governs situations where one carrier charters another or where carriers engage in code sharing.

The Warsaw Convention is made to apply to the contracting carrier throughout the journey and to the actual carrier during those parts of the journey that it carries out. A claimant may sue either, but the aggregate of damages is limited to the amounts established by the Warsaw system. However, if the contracting carrier and the passenger enter into an agreement to increase the limit, that agreement does not bind the operating carrier who has not consented to be bound.

Actions may be commenced in the state of either the contracting carrier or the operating carrier, and if only one carrier is sued, it may join the other carrier to the action.

Those are the quick summaries of the two schedules.

In bringing my introductory remarks to a close, let me mention the following: Departmental officials consulted widely before coming to Parliament. All potentially affected parties, including carriers and their association, the Air Transport Association of Canada, manufacturers, shippers, tour operators, consumers and the legal profession were consulted. We can report unanimous support for Canada's adherence to these two international instruments.

We also consulted interdepartmentally, and I want to recognize the prime role and assistance Transport Canada received from the Department of Justice on this bill.

As set out in the briefing note on consultations, the Department of National Defence has requested that Canada deposit a reservation for DND aircraft and aircraft which it contracts.

In this regard, let me draw to your attention the last page of the Warsaw Convention, which is an additional protocol allowing states to make that choice. That is tab F-1 at the very last page of the Warsaw Convention. It is a single page.

In the past, Canada has taken exemptions for state aircraft, and for Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Convention this would occur at the time that Canada's ratification instruments are placed on file with the Government of Poland as the repository agent of the Warsaw Convention documents.

This information should answer one of the questions raised by Senator Roberge during the debate on second reading. In answer to Senator Roberge's question related to the impact of the euro dollar, there is no impact. To illustrate how conversion takes place, at tab H-4 we have provided a monetary conversion table, as well as tables showing the evolution of liability limits under the act.

As for the question related to section 3 and its relation to the State Immunity Act, this is the situation: The State Immunity Act provides that all states are immune from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions include the case where the state has engaged in commercial activity, has caused bodily injury in Canada or has submitted explicitly to the jurisdiction of the courts. The proposed amendments create an irrefutable presumption that states that have not availed themselves of the provisions of the 1929 Additional Protocol, which I spoke of a moment ago, have agreed to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts.

Action in this regard is both timely and non-controversial. It is timely in the light of recently announced Canadian policies designed to promote international cargo services by Canadian carriers. It supports the government's aim of securing economic growth for the aviation industry by supporting trade; it also assists in reducing the potential for litigation and should bring improved economies of time and costs for carriers and shippers. It ensures additional protection as Canada's major carriers enter into extensive new alliances with other carriers and opportunities to operate new routes in cooperation with other carriers become more available.

All in all, that is a lot of positive results from such a short act.

Senator Kenny: My attention is drawn to clause 2(2), which sets out the proposed new subsection 2(7)(a). It refers to Schedule I, which gives us conversion rates for "Special Drawing Rights." The bill is found under tab F in our binder.

You went through the list of people whom you consulted and it sounds like you consulted everyone except the people who fly.

Ms Dufour: Consumers are on my list.

Senator Kenny: Yes, but they were one of several others. I have never yet met any consumers who thought they got a square deal when their bags were lost. They feel jerked around. It is a long and tedious process getting your bag and it usually happens while in a foreign city.

Tell me if I am not in the right column. It is almost easier to understand in francs at 250 francs per bag, but it refers to $35 per kilo per bag. How many kilos are there in a typical bag?

Mr. Gilles Lauzon, General Counsel, International Law, Department of Justice: When you travel internationally, your bag should weigh no more than 20 kilos. In excess of 20 kilos would require you to pay an excess baggage fee. People would normally have at least 20 kilos.

Senator Kenny: That means about $700 for a bag or, if you are generous, $800. You could have a suitcase that costs that much. For going away on a trip, what sort of protection are you giving to the average person when you are asking us to support a deal like this?

Ms Dufour: My quick answer to that is that these are the basics. These are the fundamentals that apply to the world. We sign on to these as our low end. Carriers clearly have other offerings in their own terms and conditions of carriage that will augment that, but the other issue is one of service.

Senator Kenny: Do we have legislation, for example, that requires Canadian carriers to have better minimums? If you are saying this is the world minimum, I accept that. That is fine. I only said "a lot" because of the Warsaw Convention. If some airline somewhere only wants to prescribe to the minimum, is there other legislation on the books that says that Air Canada or Canadian Airlines or other airlines here at home have better minimums? Or do we simply expect the Canadian airlines to conform to this piece of legislation and, if they want to go higher, it is a matter of their own corporate policy?

Mr. Lauzon: This bill deals with the implementation of Montreal Protocol No. 4. That protocol deals with transportation of cargo. It does not deal with the transportation of baggage.

The issue of whether or not the baggage liability limits ought to be reviewed to increase them will be addressed by the international community at a diplomatic conference scheduled to take place in Montreal in June of this year. The rules relating to baggage and transportation in general will be amended there after a complete review, but that is another process.

Here we are just trying to implement a protocol that improves the situation for cargo. Clause 7 tells you how to take the limits of liabilities that are already fixed by the international community and convert those limits into Canadian dollars. It does not seek to tell Canadians what higher limits are to be applied. That is a separate issue. Those issues can probably be handled within the tariffs of the airlines.

Senator Kenny: I hear you: I have to wait until June to take care of my lost baggage.

Why do I have the impression that the Americans have a better deal than we have? Am I wrong? Do the Americans not conform with this sort of arrangement? In fact, they seem to have more serious limits than we are providing for Canadians.

Ms Dufour: Senator, again, you are focusing on domestic decisions that ride over top.

Senator Kenny: That is what I am asking. Do we have any domestic decisions that ride over the top of this? If we are adopting the position that this is what the world says, and we are going to conform because we have signed a treaty with the rest of the world, that is fine, but my question to you is this: Do we have something better that rides over the top, as the Americans have, and that gives us a better deal as Canadians?

You are saying this is the lowest common denominator. I accept that the world needs to have a common denominator, and that it is pretty low, but can we not do better as Canadians? Have we perhaps done better and I just do not know about it?

Ms Dufour: I think we do do better, but not on the basis of either this act or this piece of legislation, except to the extent to which it says that domestic legislation may allow for far higher amounts.

Senator Kenny: Could you direct us to that? Could you tell me where I could find evidence that we do do better? I do not mean to beat you up, because you are just here to get this bill through, but if there is another piece of legislation that gives us better protection, let us know about it and we will keep an eye out for it when it comes by next.

Ms Dufour: The point really is that there is no other act. There is a requirement in the Canadian transportation legislation, the Canadian Transportation Act, that says there shall be liability insurance. It is a carrier's commercial decision to put in anything above what is required in the international community for international carriage. They are free to put on the limits that they desire.

You should know that the international community is running way ahead of this legislation. That is why, in the context of our experiences with Swissair and TWA, the amounts you are discussing are not the ones you see in this legislation. That is because carriers, through their international organizations, have already decided that there is something much greater than that that needs to be done.

The conventions and the states are playing catch-up with what is actually happening in the carrier community. We are not doing it by legislation. They are doing it because it is good business. They have chosen higher liability limits than this legislation requires.

Senator Kenny: Could you provide this committee with what Canada is doing and what Canada requires? It seems to me that we are all at the mercy of these airlines. None of us read the backs of the tickets until we find ourselves in deep trouble, and at that point it is too late. There would be a lot of comfort amongst many travellers to know that there was some government regulation or legislation that assured you that, if your bag was lost, you would be compensated in some better way than seems to be the case so far. Judging from the nods and smiles around the room, I assume that most of us have lost bags at one time or another and we did not like the experience.

Senator De Bané: I want to say that I sympathize with Senator Kenny, because I also remember what happened to me when I lost my luggage. It completely destroyed my official trip abroad. I had no clothing apart from what I was wearing, and so on.

However, Senator Kenny, I think we have to put this bill in perspective. We are implementing two schedules. The Montreal schedule deals essentially with modernizing the electronic transmission of documents and converting from the old gold franc to the new International Monetary Fund units. Under the Guadalajara Convention, the carrier that incurs the loss is also responsible, even if he has not been party. That is essentially the object of the two schedules. Do you agree with that?

Ms Dufour: Yes.

Senator Kenny: I would support any bill Senator De Bané would sponsor, and I am sure he knows that. However, I thought that, since we had these witnesses here, I would take this opportunity to raise a few points of concern for us poor travellers who are forever chasing down lost bags.

Senator De Bané: I have also lost luggage. I wrote a letter to the President of Air Canada outlining 15 reasons why such mistakes could happen. I questioned why, when I was taking a direct flight from Canada to the Caribbean, my suitcase would end up in Paris? He told me that he had great sympathy for me, but that their maximum liability is only so much, period. I fully understand Senator Kenny's concerns.

However, the purpose of this bill is to implement the Montreal and Guadaljara schedules. We want for the moment to implement those two international schedules. This meeting has nothing to do with the other subject. We may want to deal with my friend's concern at another time, because he is a spokesman for a great number of travellers.

Ms Dufour: A representative will appear before you from the Air Transport Association. Perhaps now that he has a warning, he will be able to specifically address this issue of baggage.

Senator Kenny: He will be the designated victim.

Ms Dufour: There is a representative in attendance from the Canadian Transportation Agency who does check carriers' tariffs, terms and conditions of carriage, and liabilities. Senator De Bané is correct: We are dealing with cargo and general carrier liabilities. There is nothing in what we are doing today that would go specifically to the issue of baggage.

The Acting Chairman: I have asked our clerk to verify and validate Senator Kenny's question so that there can be further communication with Ms Dufour and her team. The answer will be furnished to Senator Kenny via our clerk and shared with all members at the next opportunity.

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and their helpful answers to our questions today.

We will now hear a witness from the Air Transport Association of Canada. Mr. Elliott, welcome to this committee. Please proceed.

Mr. Geoffrey Elliott, Vice President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada: I am delighted to have this opportunity to be here this morning. I have circulated some notes on what I have to say. I hasten to add that I am not a lawyer and I am not an expert in insurance. The legislation is intended to deal with some very complex and technical matters, but I will do my best to respond to any questions you may have.

By way of background, I should mention that the Air Transport Association of Canada represents all the major airlines of this country, including Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International, Air Transat, and other charter operators such as Canada 3000 and Skyservice. Our membership also includes all cargo operators, regional carriers, and many small airlines. In all, ATAC membership represents approximately 95 per cent of Canadian commercial aviation.

The subject of my remarks is Bill S-23, which we regard as a long overdue piece of legislation that will provide the Government of Canada with the necessary legislative authority to adhere to the Guadalajara Convention of 1961 as well as to ratify Montreal Protocol No. 4, originally signed by Canada in 1975.

These multilateral agreements modernize the rules regarding airline liability for passengers and cargo, and simplify documentation for the international carriage of cargo originally established, as the previous witness mentioned, under the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and its amendment, the Hague Protocol of 1955.

The Guadalajara Convention, which is already in effect, although Canada is not a contracting party, extends the liability of carriers that contract to carry passengers, baggage and cargo to include the airline that actually carries the passenger, baggage and cargo. The convention in that sense fills a significant gap that results from the modern practice where the actual carrier may be different from the one that sells a ticket for air transportation. The actual carrier may be different because of such practices today as code sharing among airlines, wet leasing, which is the leasing of aircraft and crew, the selling of block space by one airline to another, and other practices which have the same effect.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 deals with cargo and provides for the simplification of documentation for the carriage of cargo and includes certain changes in the liability regime which we believe to be of benefit to both airlines and shippers.

The most significant benefit to airlines is that Montreal Protocol No. 4 will make it possible for airlines to issue automated documents of carriage to replace the traditional air waybill so that airlines and their customers can take advantage of modern techniques of data transmission.

Another important feature of Protocol No. 4 is that it changes airline liability for damage to cargo on board an aircraft by removing the requirement that a plaintiff prove that the airline was at fault. Certain defences are, however, retained for the airlines to deal with such matters as inherent defects in the cargo, defective packaging by a person other than the carrier, an act of war, or an act by a public authority in connection with inspection of the goods for entry, exit or transit.

Together, these changes will reduce the potential for litigation and contribute to controlling costs associated with insurance and cargo rates.

The Air Transport Association of Canada unreservedly supports Bill S-23. It has remained the consistent view of the air transport industry that Canada should adhere to the Guadalajara Convention and should ratify Montreal Protocol No. 4 since Canada signed the agreement almost one-quarter of a century ago.

We believe Canada's decision to defer ratification was based mainly on the failure of the U.S. to ratify Montreal Protocol No. 4 until late last year rather than because Canada had any substantive difficulties with the content of the protocol. That obstacle was removed when the U.S. finally deposited an instrument of ratification or adherence on December 4, 1998, with an effective date of just last week, March 4, 1999. Canadian shippers and carriers will be at a disadvantage in comparison to their U.S. competitors if Canada fails to enact the required legislation.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 required ratification by 30 countries before it could formally take effect. That requirement was met and the protocol entered into force in June of last year. Several other countries, including the United States, swiftly ratified Montreal Protocol No. 4 soon after so that there are now 40 or more contracting parties, including most European countries and many developing countries.

Finally, we believe there is no longer any justification for further delay by Canada. As you know, Transport Canada has consulted widely with the industry. I can confirm that both Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Convention have the unanimous support of the aviation industry in Canada.

On behalf of the airlines of Canada, I simply urge you to get on with the job and pass Bill S-23 as soon as possible.

The Acting Chairman: That could not be clearer.

Senator Kenny: Is the wording of the Guadalajara Convention, which goes back many years, still consistent with modern practice?

Mr. Elliott: The Guadalajara Convention, which extends the liabilities of carriers to the carrier that actually carries the passenger, is consistent with modern practice. It is more important today than, perhaps, it was at the time the convention was originally signed.

Senator Kenny: I would ask you to look at Schedule V of the bill, which is on page 16.

Can you tell us some of the typical circumstances where carriage might be provided by a carrier different from the one with whom the contract is made?

Mr. Elliott: I mentioned some of those circumstances in my statement. Typically, today, that would be a function of code sharing between airlines, where you will buy a ticket on Canadian airlines and you might find that you are flying on a British Airways flight or an American Airlines flight. Similarly, if you buy a ticket on Air Canada you may well be flying on United Airlines or you may be flying on Lufthansa. It would precisely fit that situation.

However, even before the advent of the large alliance agreements on a global basis, the industry has a long history of commercial relationships between carriers where, on a route-by-route or carrier-by-carrier basis, they may contract with each other to carry each other's traffic. That goes back a long way, and most likely was the stimulus for the protocol in the first place.

Senator Kenny: If these arrangements are in place, how does this legislation assist your functioning?

Mr. Elliott: You would contract with Air Canada to fly somewhere but you could fly on Lufthansa.

Senator Kenny: We are talking about cargo here, are we not?

Mr. Elliott: The Guadalajara Convention, I think, also applies to passengers. Those obligations apply to Lufthansa even though you would not necessarily have bought the ticket from them.

Senator Kenny: The deal that you made with Air Canada would apply to Lufthansa, or would the minimum standards apply to Lufthansa?

Mr. Elliott: That is right.

Senator Kenny: I have given you two options and you have said "That is right." I am not sure which you are indicating is correct.

Mr. Elliott: The obligations in the convention would apply to the carrier that actually carries you or your baggage, as opposed to the carrier that sold the ticket.

Senator Kenny: You might have a good deal with Air Canada but Lufthansa might say that they will apply the convention, and that may be not as good a deal.

Mr. Elliott: In actual fact, you have the opportunity to go to both carriers. Prior to that, there was no obligation in the convention with respect to the carrier that actually provided you and your baggage with transportation. This extends the liability to them. However, it does not remove the liability from the carrier from whom you purchased the ticket.

Senator Maheu: You say that you believe Canada's decision to defer ratification was based mainly on the failure of the U.S. to ratify. I find that waiting until the U.S. does something takes away from our sovereignty. Did your association urge the Canadian government to ratify the Guadalajara Convention and the Montreal Protocol?

Mr. Elliott: I cannot say that we made any representations to the government specifically at any particular time in the past. I am confident that, in the history of these agreements, there were consultations with the industry -- both with the association and with our members. I am also confident that, on those occasions, our members would have been supportive of Canada being a signatory to the agreement and early ratification.

On the other hand, I can only guess that those responsible in the government also wanted to be sure that the agreement would be a viable one before taking the necessary legislative action in Canada.

The absence of key signatories had a bearing on the viability of the agreement as a working multilateral agreement. In that context, I suspect it would not necessarily receive the priority in government, from a legislative point of view, that it would have today when the agreement has been ratified by the necessary number of signatories.

Senator Kenny: Of the airlines that you represent, do they all exceed the minimum requirements on the lost baggage question that we were kicking around earlier?

Mr. Elliott: I do not think I could speak to that because it relates to the individual policies of individual companies. I am confident that they do exceed those requirements. However, I do not know their specific obligations or policies.

In the context of the carriage of baggage, one thing that the airlines do not know is what passengers put in their baggage. It is difficult to have a circumstance where there would be unlimited liability for the value of something that is unknown to the carrier of the baggage. However, in air transportation, as in other forms of transportation, if a passenger or customer is transporting something of particular value, it remains open to supplement with additional insurance whatever coverage is provided by the carrier. That is not unusual in industries other than the air transport industry.

Senator Kenny: Could you, as the representative of these airlines, provide this committee with information on the Canadian airlines that you represent, as to what their limits are for payment for lost baggage, and what their procedures are in order that a claimant will receive it? I do not want you to spend the next six months gathering this information. Would this be a difficult task?

Mr. Elliott: No. I would simply circulate the question to our members and ask them to provide me with information on their current policies, both with respect to the limits and their procedures.

The Acting Chairman: How many members do you have in all, Mr. Elliott?

Mr. Elliott: The association has about 150 members but, for the purpose of meeting Senator Kenny's request, I suspect that you would be satisfied with the major carriers in Canada.

Senator Kenny: The ones you listed when you sat down would probably be satisfactory.

The Acting Chairman: We would appreciate it. Once again, our clerk will verify the details of Senator Kenny's question.

Mr. Elliott: Would it be sufficient if I cover Air Canada, Canadian Airlines, the main charter operators, and their subsidiary companies?

The Acting Chairman: Would that be appropriate, Senator Kenny?

Senator Kenny: Yes.

Mr. Elliott: I would be delighted to do that.

The Acting Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott. The clerk will follow up with you, and the information will be distributed to all members of the committee.

Colleagues, I think we have heard from the witnesses from whom we planned to hear.

Is it agreed, senators, that the committee now move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall clause 4 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall Schedules IV and V carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall the preamble to the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Carried.

Is it agreed that this bill be adopted, colleagues?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill without amendment to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Kenny: Will that be today?

The Acting Chairman: Yes. Thank you, colleagues.

The committee adjourned.