I would like to make reference to what you suggested earlier--that is, in the event of a cancellation of the airplane, you would be put at a big disadvantage.
I want to point out to you that if the airline informs the passengers at least two weeks before departure, it would pay nothing. If the passenger accepts in writing a rerouting because the flight has been cancelled, you pay nothing.
Subparagraph 4(1)(iii) says that if the air carrier “can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”, you would pay nothing. And that is the wording in the European Union bill.
Some of the airlines have asked us to look at defining “extraordinary circumstances”, because they want to see some definitions. Only 8 of 16 airlines in Europe have actually defined “extraordinary circumstances”. We can bring those in through amendments.
As a matter of fact, the KLM amendment, which the broadest of all the airlines, I believe would deal point for point with the concerns that my honourable colleague Mr. Laframboise has just mentioned. It is extremely broad.
As a matter of fact, consumers groups feel that the airlines have too big a loophole here, that they're being given too many exemptions. We feel that the bill has to be fair, and the European bill is fair because it has survived two court challenges. If we make this bill too restrictive, those lobbyists, those highly paid lawyers out there, will take it to court and they will win. By leaving things general as they have in Europe—“under extraordinary circumstances”—it's flexible enough, at least in the opinion of the review committee that has been working over there.
But I'm prepared, certainly, to introduce amendments. We have enough amendments between the three parties here to bring in different versions of an exclusion that would be tantamount to what we see in Europe.
Do you think that would be an agreeable settlement?