Transport Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I will repeat my question, Ms. De Bellefeuille.

If we were to support our airlines, they would have an opportunity to continue with their activities and preserve jobs, while there would be a chance of ticket buyers being reimbursed. What do you think about that?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

I have absolutely nothing against the idea of the government financially supporting airlines if they need that support, provided that money would not be given to them willy-nilly. If certain airline companies do need the government's financial support, it is the government's prerogative to examine their file and give them the necessary money. This is, after all, an unprecedented situation.

We understand that this is difficult for everyone, including businesses, but many consumers are also struggling mightily and need their money. We are not talking about $20 here; plane tickets cost hundreds of dollars, even thousands of dollars. People need their money.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

If the airlines, despite the critical situation and the potential impact on their cash flow, had decided to provide refunds, wouldn't that have simply put us in the position we're in today more quickly? Right now, the companies are asking taxpayers for millions of dollars in loan guarantees and other conditions. Is it fair to say that we were inevitably going to end up at the same point anyway, so it wasn't worth provoking customer anger to that extent?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

As I was saying, the fact of helping airlines in itself isn't a problem if the government wants to go in that direction.

As Mr. Lawford indicated earlier, it's consumer trust that's being put to the test. As for travel credits, people may not be able to use them, so there are no guarantees for consumers. We don't think travel credits are an acceptable solution if people don't have the opportunity to travel. At the very least, people should have a choice: if they don't want these travel credits, they should be able to get a refund.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

But is a retrospective analysis of the situation being abused? The airlines couldn't have known from the outset how long this crisis would last. Nor could they have known for sure whether the federal government would support them or how much.

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

You're talking about abuse. No one knows how long the pandemic will last. In this regard, I think any crystal ball has the same probability of giving the right answer.

I know it's not easy for the airlines. They also don't have a guarantee from governments as to the assistance that will be available to them. I understand that. However, we couldn't say that the airlines haven't received any assistance because they've already benefited from wage subsidies. Is this assistance sufficient or not? That will be determined by market forces.

All in all, other companies have experienced financial difficulties and still had to reimburse their customers, so I don't see why it would be any different for airlines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Madame De Bellefeuille and Mr. El-Khoury.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for you, Ms. Bellefeuille. Earlier, in your opening remarks, you referred to the obligation under the Quebec civil code to refund any service that hasn't been rendered. Theoretically, airlines should have refunded their customers.

However, the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency decided instead to endorse a travel credit policy. In doing so, they have endorsed a violation of the Quebec civil code.

Do you agree with us? Do you think it's the responsibility of a federal minister and agencies to encourage companies to break the law?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

Since the Quebec civil code isn't a criminal code, the word “offence” is problematic for me.

What is certain, however, is that the civil code includes provisions for acts of God: even in cases of an act of God, the company must reimburse any sum paid for a service that could not be rendered. In other words, an act of God should not be an excuse for unjustified enrichment.

Other provisions of the civil code deal with the issue of contracts of adhesion, which cannot be negotiated. Even if someone signs a contract providing that there will be no refund, I find it difficult to conceive that it would not be abusive for a business to believe that it can get away with this money without rendering any service.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Do you find it normal that the position of the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency goes against the civil code?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

Above all, I find it disappointing.

I understand that the Canadian Transportation Agency and the federal government may say that it isn't their responsibility to enforce provincial law. To a certain extent, they are right. However, that doesn't mean that provincial law should be completely set aside when it applies. I think it would probably have been more appropriate to say here that, in addition to federal rules, there are other obligations to which federally regulated businesses are subject, including consumer protection.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you. Your answer provides some interesting clarifications. Provincial laws must be respected as much as federal laws, and it's the responsibility of elected officials to encourage companies to respect these laws.

You also talked about travel credits. People are being offered travel credits instead of a refund.

Could you explain the distinction between the two options? Why are travel credits not a sufficient or acceptable solution?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

To take advantage of travel credits, people will have to take a new trip, but it's important to remember that in some cases, as Mr. Lawford mentioned, the opportunity for the trip won't arise again in the future. People may travel on special or specific occasions that won't exist anymore once the pandemic is over. We still don't know when it will be safe for people to travel. It may take another year or two. Even if vaccines are coming to Canada, we don't know for sure how they will be distributed. We know even less how it will be distributed in countries where people want to travel.

The other problem is that travel credits don't guarantee prices. It's possible that, later on, the travel credits may not be enough to make the trip that was originally planned. Airlines may charge people extra if they want to take the same trip.

Also, as I mentioned, many people experienced significant financial losses during the pandemic and struggled to make ends meet. Some people have experienced drops in income. Not everyone had access to the various government assistance measures because they weren't eligible. In this context, it is very likely that a large number of travellers won't be able to afford to travel in the near future.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you very much.

A few weeks ago, in Parliament, I introduced Bill C-249, which stresses the obligation of airlines to reimburse passengers when the airlines don't render the service the passengers have paid for.

Would you say it would be good if the House of Commons passed this bill?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

Absolutely.

It must be said that the bill reiterates an existing right. In our view, federal acts and regulations already provide tools that would allow consumers to access a refund. Clearly, some parties are taking a narrower interpretation. So it's a good thing to reiterate this right through the legislation that has been introduced.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

You have 30 seconds.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I have one last question for you. I don't know if you'll have time to answer it in full.

We have referred a lot to a kind of discrimination between refundable and non-refundable tickets. It's as if, in the case of a service that isn't offered, people who have purchased non-refundable tickets don't deserve a refund.

What can you tell us about this?

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille]

A distinction must be made between the situation where the consumer chose not to travel and the situation where the company didn't provide the service. It's one thing for the ticket not to be refunded after the consumer changed their mind. That's not what's happening here. It's really the carriers that didn't provide the service that people paid for, and that's what's unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, and Madame De Bellefeuille.

We're now going to move to the NDP.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.

Mr. Lukács, why should airline passengers be concerned about the March 25 statement on vouchers? Is it a typical practice for the CTA to issue such statements?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Mr. Chair, the March 25 statement issued by the agency misleads the public about their rights. A quasi-judicial body does not speak through public statements; it speaks through its decisions. The issuing of some general, broad policy guides, interpretation guides about new regulations may happen, but about a matter that is contested, a matter that is already before the body or very likely to come before the body in a very short time, is entirely unacceptable. I'm sure you realize that no court in Canada would speak through such public statements. Judges, decision-makers, people who act in a quasi-judicial capacity speak through their decisions.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Lukács, why do you think the CTA issued the statement on vouchers?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

That's a question we would very much like to know the answer to.

Certainly, passengers did not ask for it. The statement on vouchers is beneficial to airlines and harms passengers. We would very much like to see the documents, the correspondence and the internal memos that led to that statement, including emails within the agency, emails between the agency and the airlines, and between the agency and other branches of the government.