Evidence of meeting #49 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 passengers.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Okay.
Mr. Lukács, could you talk about the barriers to entry? Maybe you could rattle off a few that would be interesting to this committee with regard to competition.
2:40 p.m.
President, Air Passenger Rights
The main barrier to entry is foreign ownership requirements. Only a company that is deemed Canadian can operate a domestic service within Canada. Currently, if you have a Lufthansa flight coming into Toronto, they cannot pick up passengers from Toronto and transport them to Montreal before they fly back to Europe.
With some trusted countries and their trusted airlines, it would certainly be helpful to open up the domestic market for more competition.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl and Mr. Lukács.
Finally today, we have Ms. Koutrakis.
Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lawford, you said in your testimony that, following the December events, PIAC is now recommending that we perhaps adopt the European model for the APPR. Some have suggested simply cutting-and-pasting the European passenger rights. Is this something that you agree with? Is this the approach that you would recommend? Can you see any unintended consequences that might arise from that in Canada?
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I don't think, if you're cherry-picking certain more extensive rights, it will fix the backlog or necessarily result in more compliance by the airlines. Because of the three streams we have in Canada, it's needlessly complicated. Ultimately, the idea is to get rid of those so that there's only extraordinary circumstances as an excuse to not pay the compensation that is otherwise owed. Apart from that, then you can add on additional European requirements if you feel the air passenger is not being treated in accordance with the Montreal Convention or what we want to have for flights in Canada.
It's tempting to just cherry-pick them, but as I said in my remarks, I think we're going structural here. At the very least, the burden has to shift to the airlines, because that would give the consumers a result in most cases more quickly.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Do we have any data to know how satisfied European travellers are with their passenger rights? Do we have any data on that?
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I'm going to throw that to Dr. Lukács, who I think would have that, or maybe Mr. Jack.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Could I possibly ask one of you to maybe come back to us with something like that?
I'll also ask my team to see if they can find something like that. Is that something that is doable?
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
We'll be happy to have a look. I think you might find some results in the companies that do claims for European travellers.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Some have suggested that the APPR regime be expanded to include other parts of air travel systems, such as airports, CATSA and the CBSA. What are your thoughts on this?
2:40 p.m.
President, Air Passenger Rights
In terms of responding to the relationship between passengers and other players, that interface between CATSA should be with the airline. The international standard established by the Montreal Convention and the European regime is that passengers have a single address, and that's the airline. Even for baggage that may be damaged by CATSA, say, the airline pays the passenger, and the airline then claims from CATSA.
It's a corporate dispute resolution between those large players, where the passenger should have a single address for their complaints. However, we certainly do support that airlines should have an avenue to recoup some of their damages, some of their expenses, from third parties who are responsible for the situation.
2:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
The only comment I would make is that there's the APPR and then there are changes in the system more broadly to make it work better for everybody, including passengers. I certainly don't know that I'd be looking under the APPR for the answers. I think the APPR has enough problems as it is, but you do raise a very valid point that should be addressed.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
I'm just wondering, in the case of the federal entities, would this not be a case of fining organizations that are already funded entirely by taxpayers? The government effectively would be fining and collecting monies from itself. Does that make sense?
2:45 p.m.
President, Air Passenger Rights
I'm not suggesting fining those organizations. I'm saying that if these organizations cause damage to airlines, then, like any other player, the airlines should be reimbursed for that.
However, if what we saw this past summer happens again, with the airlines knowing perfectly well that CATSA or CBSA didn't have adequate staffing and they still sold tickets, that's entirely within the airlines' control. Where the CBSA, CATSA and other governmental players can be held to account is where they don't inform the airlines in advance of problems that they may be having.
2:45 p.m.
Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
I'll just add briefly that the airlines and the airports don't seem to be talking, because when the baggage belt breaks down, the airline can't get the baggage to their customers, who leave, and then they are stuck with the problem. I know that there are disputes between how much rent is paid by the airlines to the airports, but I mean, really, get these folks in a room. They keep talking about shared responsibility. How about having some meetings?
The minister should be jumping on that and having another session like he had in the fall, but with these resiliency questions on the agenda.
2:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association
That's why one of our recommendations is an explicit power for the minister to direct in extraordinary circumstances. Again, it's to have that stick in the background, so that when he or she convenes a meeting of the players, they know that it's more than just a chat and they're going to have to come up with a solution.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.
On behalf of our committee, I would like to thank all our witnesses for joining us today and for their testimony.
I'd also like to thank all members who have given their time, not only for today's special meeting but also for the special meeting we held on January 12 in order to ask questions on behalf of Canadians.
With that, this meeting is adjourned.