You're right, we need to ask Air Canada. We're hoping at some point that Air Canada, WestJet, and Boeing will be able to come to this committee before we conclude our study.
It sounds to me as though Air Canada jumped when people complained, and it was afraid of losing dollars and of a threat to its profit base. Yet when people have written and complained, they get the kind of answer that I think is quite offensive for most people: I'm sorry to hear that you were ill on your latest flight, and you're dissatisfied with the response, but that's too bad.
If Air Canada can't bring forward a more responsible position, and your agency can't—it sounds as though what you have to go through is to get a doctor's certificate to prove you have a certain kind of disability, you have to justify that there's an obstacle on an airline that would aggravate that disability, and so on—it doesn't sound to me that there's much hope of going that route. Maybe what we have to do is bring in a law or do something in Parliament to make this happen.
So what's the best we should aim for? I know we have to deal with the issue of guide dogs and that's important, but first, in terms of the broad policy, do we go for a complete ban? Is that the ideal, notwithstanding the question of guide dogs? Or do we go towards the WestJet approach in having certain flights designated? Well, I don't think they do that, but one idea is that certain flights be designated pet-free and others not. Or do we just let airlines decide to keep the seats apart and that will be good enough?
I'd like to hear from each of your organizations on what you think is the best approach.