Evidence of meeting #34 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was airlines.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
Oh. Well, you're probably lucky. I think that's a pretty good average.
I don't have the numbers system-wide, but I can tell you that cancellations are not as frequent as some of those supporting this bill will tell you.
It was suggested that it was done for purely commercial reasons. That's not the case.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
You've been able to incorporate into your service model the provisions of “Flight Rights Canada”, as you were talking about earlier in your submission. Would you say that the application of those recommendations has basically made the Canadian airlines better airlines?
5:10 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
I think we've put some serious proposals out there, and we say we are going to abide by the standards we've given ourselves.
Reference was made to the 90-minute commitment. That is a real commitment. I can tell you that it's half the time currently being debated right now in the Senate of the United States, where, as you know, they have a more serious problem when it comes to these sorts of things due to the obvious nature of the beast down there with the huge congestion they have at some of their airports. And when their system goes down, it could create some major delays.
But we have said it should be 90 minutes where circumstances permit. That clearly ensures that the captain has the last word. And again, we're not in the business, despite what others may say, of “warehousing” passengers, as I've unfortunately heard said, which I think is a little demeaning to our customers.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
To Madam Hébert, with regard to bookings, it was suggested by the earlier witness that you basically make bookings and then if somebody comes along with more money, you kick one off and grab another one. In other words, you overbook in the hope you'll get a better price.
That isn't a common practice. In fact, that probably isn't a practice at all. Is that correct?
5:10 p.m.
Director, National Airlines Council of Canada
I haven't heard of that, no.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
No. Ultimately, if there's an overbooking, it could be because of somebody whom you've told to come to the airport to see if they can get a seat, and if possible, somebody might want to fly a little bit later and make that seat available for them.
Is that correct? Or do you overbook?
5:15 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
No. An earlier reference was made to WestJet not overbooking. Air Transat doesn't overbook either. I'll leave it....
What we do is very simple. If there is a situation where somebody is not able to board as booked, we have in our tariffs very clear provisions regarding compensation. We ask for volunteers. When we have volunteers, they are compensated.
Unfortunately, when it might happen that the person may not be a volunteer and may to have to be denied, well, clearly the compensation that's provided is a factor in that as well.
There's no way that somebody doesn't get on and is not currently compensated under our rules.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I note from your testimony before us that it seems your preoccupation is with the liabilities that you suggest are beyond your control, supply chain issues. You note that under the current provisions within Bill C-310 it's a bonanza for lawyers.
Let me ask you this. You seem to have a lot of respect for the Canadian Transportation Agency. It seems to be working out okay for you. It's a quasi-judicial body, with a vested interest and a competence in investigating and enforcing matters pertaining to commercial transportation issues.
Let me give you a suggestion and see how you respond. To prevent matters that are not in your control from being deemed your liability, how about actually having the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body with competence in monitoring regulation pertaining to the commercial aviation industry, actually determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, it is indeed a commercial airline liability that created a particular delay or other inconvenience or a matter beyond their control?
One of the things suggested to us is that.... We're frequent travellers, but it's not about us, it's about our constituents, it's about the travelling public that we hear from. We hear that often airlines will provide a mitigating circumstance to a failure to provide a customer service on an issue out of their control. At certain times, evidence is presented that suggests that maybe it was indeed in the airline's control, that it was a commercial decision.
Why not have the Canadian Transportation Agency be granted the authority to investigate and enforce these matters? Would you agree with that?
That's good transparency, in my opinion.
5:15 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
I guess I'd ask you this: on the basis of what legislative framework?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
That's exactly the point: on the basis of the legislative framework that provides greater powers to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is, as my friend Mr. Maloway pointed out, a royal recommendation. It requires the advancement of public money to be able to do so.
Let me suggest this to you. As an airline association, if the government, which was the body that was originally charged with the responsibility of providing increased consumer protection in the airline industry, came forward with a bill that suggested that not only a minimum standard of consumer protection be afforded to airline passengers but that the Canadian Transportation Agency--not courts, not lawyers, but people with competence to investigate and enforce infractions of that code--were given that power to provide such rulings in a timely manner, with a specific competence, would you agree with that legislation?
5:15 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
Mr. Byrne, thank you for that.
If that takes place in the context of no Bill C-310, I'm going to tell you now that we're prepared to discuss any possible scenarios.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
— but you're not prepared to commit to such a transparent, open, and accountable process.
5:15 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
Well, sir, I can't speak on behalf of a specific proposal in that respect without, obviously, consulting our membership. I take your point here, and your suggestion, but I have to be able to speak on behalf of people, and I—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Mr. Petsikas, that suggestion has been made. I met with your organizations and your members, and I raised it in the House countless times that the Canadian Transportation Agency, if it were granted the authority, the power to be able to investigate these matters, determine whether or not the liability was flowing to the airline or to a body outside of its direct influence, whether it be CATSA or the aerodrome authority itself....
That suggestion has been on the table. We are here today because it has been ignored.
5:20 p.m.
President, National Airlines Council of Canada
Mr. Byrne, if I may, if we're talking about a legislative regulatory framework that understands how the aviation supply system works, that takes away this culture of blame and penalization, that looks at real ways of improving the customer experience and improving customer protection and standards, and if that may involve a framework that involves the CTA--takes the courts out of it, takes legal uncertainty out of it--I can tell you we will be there and we will be discussing that very seriously, sir.
I'm saying that on the record now.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Great. Well, that suggestion was made over a year ago. We'll certainly take you up on that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
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?
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
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?
