Transport Committee on Sept. 13th, 2017

[David Rheault]

I'd like to go back to what Ms. Pavlovic said.

This could be a topic for an international convention, such as the Montreal convention, that standardizes some of the rules in terms of responsibility.

Here is an example of what happens when the system is applied outside Canada: when a passenger leaves Israel for Canada with a stopover in Europe, three systems apply to that passenger, at different levels and with different carriers. This complicates the administration for us, the carriers, but it also makes the process more difficult to understand for passengers, who want to know on which door to knock and what compensation they are entitled to. It becomes very difficult to manage for us, which delays things.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That's why I would prefer to deal with the one I bought the ticket from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you have another question, Mr. Aubin?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, I will be very brief.

There is increased competition between companies. Let me give you two examples of changes made in recent years. The flight attendant/passenger ratio increased from 40 to 50, and the cap for foreign capital funding was changed. Is it acceptable that the changes apply to only a few companies that, I suspect, lobbied more aggressively because that's what they needed at the time? When changes are made, would it not be better if they applied consistently to the entire industry?

[David Rheault]

For us, it's the level playing field principle, or equal competition. It is an important principle.

There have been legislative changes, such as the exemptions granted to certain carriers with respect to foreign ownership. It is a matter of principle to us. We feel that all carriers should be able to enjoy the same rules because we operate in the same industry and compete for the same passengers. So the same system should apply to everyone.

[Mike McNaney]

Very quickly, in terms of the foreign ownership, one other piece that we do have to recognize is that there is no WTO for commercial aviation services. There's no one global agreement, so when all the bilaterals go across all the different jurisdictions in which we operate, nationality is part of the agreement. Regarding that 49%, if you eliminate that or go beyond it, you're going to get into issues of whether you qualify as a Canadian operator, for example, in this instance, under a bilateral agreement with another nation.

There is broader context, and that's why the U.S. is at 25%, and the EU will go up to 49%. It is very interesting that some of those carriers and entities perceived to be the largest that are going to be in the global sphere have 0% foreign ownership, because they view the airline as a competitive asset in terms of their economic growth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think we'll probably only have time for one or maybe two questions. Most of us here fly twice a week when the House is sitting, and I have to say, most of the time the service is actually pretty good. I mentioned the other day during the opening panel how frustrating it can be when you see those videos on the Internet of egregious treatment, because we're all familiar with the frustrations we come across when a flight might be overbooked and you have to sit through that awkward auction, or when you have trouble finding a seat next to your child. I recounted one instance where my size 16 basketball shoes rolled out on the carousel at the end of a long flight, and it is very frustrating.

With this bill of rights, WestJet, I appreciate your answer saying you can live with this, it's good, and you'll look forward to the details in the regulation.

Air Canada, you proposed a handful of amendments that, to be frank, give me some cause for concern. When I'm looking at rights, what I'm hoping for is, through competition, you guys are going to raise the roof and hold each other to account and give me the best possible travel experience.

When I look at the proposed amendments, instead of raising the roof, I fear you're asking us to lower the floor in the name of harmony and ease of operation. When I look at adopting the Montreal Convention when it comes to baggage, or the departure from a location within the U.S., or the carrier obligations such as the EU's that you mentioned, are we risking lowering the floor? To me, that's not a conversation about rights.

[David Rheault]

I just want to add something. If you take the specific example of baggage liability, if you apply the limit of the Montreal Convention to domestic travel you will actually raise the floor, because the limit of liability in the Montreal Convention is around $2,000 right now, while different limits and passenger tariffs will vary from $500 to $1,500.

What we say, basically, is that if there is a limit that is applicable internationally, why don't we just have the same limit domestically so it's easier for us to manage? The customer would be aware that there is a new limit for both. The system is simpler for us, which makes it more efficient.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I would love to dig down more on this.

I have one more question and we only have about one more minute.

There was an important issue that Ms. Pavlovic raised about third parties being able to launch claims for causes of action for systemic problems. This is a conversation going on with human rights around the globe right now.

Can an NGO bring a case on behalf of a large group of complainants who can't bring it forward themselves? Is this something you think is possible, reasonable, and workable, within the context of the aviation industry and the context of the air passenger bill of rights?

[David Rheault]

In our submission before the panel, this is a point that we made, that you have to have a direct interest to be entitled to file a claim. That's a principle that we submitted to the CTA review panel. This principle is included to a certain extent in Bill C-49, and we're comfortable with that, although we have proposed some amendments to give it more clarity.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think we're out of time.

If Ms. Pavlovic had an opportunity to comment, could we maybe allow a short answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think we could manage another minute.

[Prof. Marina Pavlovic]

Thank you.

There is currently a case before the Supreme Court of Canada that is going to be heard on October 2, on standing by non-parties to challenge some of the provinces. I think it is important to have third-party standing. It's not necessarily to encourage the complaints industry—and you might hear from somebody tomorrow who is in that business—but to provide for a legitimate challenge of systemic practices that an individual consumer cannot do.

I strongly suggest to include language that would allow third parties with some interest, not random third parties, to have standing in these kinds of issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you all very much.

Everybody seems satisfied with all of the answers, so I think you've done a good job.

Thank you all very much for coming this evening.

We will now adjourn for the day.