Evidence of meeting #145 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was baggage.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
I'll turn the floor over to Mr. van Koeverden, on a point of order.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do you have a speaking list already for this motion? Can I be on it next?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We do not, Mr. van Koeverden, but what we are going to do is probably suspend to ensure that we can all get a copy of this, and then members can determine how we'd like to proceed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm going to let Mr. Lawrence finish, and from there, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Badawey, who had his hand up first—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
—and then, if it's the will of the committee, I think we'll probably suspend so that we can discuss this off-line, and then come back to see whether we'd like to handle this today or perhaps at another date.
I'll let you finish, Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
This is in keeping with our study today, and I think we've heard some compelling evidence.
Actually, if I am not telling tales out of school, Mr. Badawey and I were discussing the issues and the need to dig down deeper, and I think the additional three meetings would give us the opportunity to do so.
Thank you.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
With respect to the time we have left with the witnesses, which is very valuable, can we actually have this in writing and deal with it at the next meeting? This was asked by Mr. Lawrence in the first place.
I would ask Mr. Lawrence if we can have this so that we can deal with it at the next meeting under a UC motion.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Badawey, it is in writing, and it is, of course, translated, so it is available for you to review.
If we want two minutes, we would like to have a vote today. If you have the votes to adjourn it for another day, that's fine, but we would like to have this voted on and dealt with today.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I think it's very important that we complete this meeting. I have questions for the witnesses, and I would move to adjourn debate on this for now and come back to it at another date.
It's a dilatory motion, I believe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We'll go to a vote on the motion to adjourn debate.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
I'll turn the floor over now to Mr. Badawey.
You have the floor, sir, for five minutes.
December 13th, 2024 / 2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start off by saying this. It's not indifferent to what I was saying to the witnesses earlier, in the earlier panel. This is all about affordability. That means adjusting your discretionary costs accordingly, in the best interests of the customer.
I'll take the business side first. One of the things that I'm interested in—and it goes to Mr. Lawrence's motion—is looking at your balance sheets. It's looking at the costs, the revenues, your debt-to-operating ratio, your capital, your operating sides of the balance sheet, your net margins on auxiliary fees and things of that nature.
I find it really hard to believe that when we're looking at affordability, a CEO can earn $12 million in a year, yet once you collect auxiliary fees from customers, it doesn't even come close to that as a discretionary cost.
With all of the costs imposed by the government, it comes in the form of one of two ways: either as user fees to the Canadian taxpayers or as a direct fee to the sector. Those fees are subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, or they come in the form of user fees by the airline sector. It's that simple.
When we talk about “unbundling”, it simply identifies the expenses. Who pays for those expenses? Are they paid for by user fees, or are they paid for with subsidies by Canadians?
Now I'll inject parliamentary theatrics into the discussion—the politics—as outlined by our Conservative colleagues. Their narrative today, which was outlined by one of the members, is that either it's fees, or it's the carbon tax. Let's dig a bit deeper on that. I apologize for being repetitive, but I want you to understand this.
Fees are the costs of doing business within your sector. The carbon tax is a cost related to climate change. Once again, we go back to the premise. The premise is that those fees within your sector are paid for through user fees, or they're subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Carbon tax fees are paid for by the polluters, or they're subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.
Once again, who pays? Quite frankly, isn't that what this discussion is all about today? Is it a subsidy by the Canadian taxpayer, or is it user fees? We can have many meetings coming up, speaking about all of the auxiliary fees, the operating, the capital, your debt operating and all of that. It all boils down to one thing. Who pays? What's non-discretionary? What's discretionary?
My question goes to Mr. Lawrence's motion. This was a question I asked the CEO from WestJet. Do you really want to deal with this? Then let's deal with it. Let's sit down and see those balance sheets. Let's see the net revenues, the net profits that you're making. Let's make decisions based on those discretionary costs and decisions versus the non-discretionary, and let's come up with some new solutions with respect to the user fee structure versus the subsidized structure.
Is Air Canada willing to do that, Mr. Rousseau?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
I need to think about that for a while.
We're a public company. All of our numbers, our balance sheet, and our P and L are all public information, so you can see what we make and what we invest in. As I said earlier, we typically invest all of our profits into technology, better planes or something beneficial to the consumer.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada
I'd like to understand better the scope of what you're suggesting.
The debate on our model here in Canada, as a user-pay model versus a subsidized model, which the U.S. has, for the most part—and it's much closer to the U.S. model—has been going on for some time. I think we all understand the pros and cons of each one. I'm certainly willing and able to continue that debate as we go forward.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
That's the crux of today's discussion. We can talk about the politics. We can talk about the parliamentary theatrics that have been going on for the last two hours, but the bottom line is affordability, and based on that, is it a subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer, or is it a user fee? If we want to get to the bottom line, if we want to get to that, then I believe that discussion—
I'm talking. Shut your mic off.
To get to that point, that discussion has to happen.
Conservative
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Again, the question I had for WestJet was to in fact ask for those so that we can get to those conclusions. Again, it goes to Mr. Lawrence's motion because, if we don't get to those conclusions, Mr. Lawrence's motion is useless.
I'm asking Air Canada for the same thing.
If you really want to have that discussion, then let's have it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Badawey.
I have a point of order that I have to address with Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I understand that we get passionate. I know Mr. Badawey to be an honourable member, but I don't think telling a witness to “shut his mic” is appropriate.