Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence, November 16, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:31 a.m. to study the emerging issues related to the Canadian airline industry.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I declare this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications open. Thank you for being here today.
This morning, we are going to continue our study on emerging issues related to the Canadian airline industry, which was referred to us.
[English]
Appearing before us on behalf of the Canadian Transportion Agency are Nina Frid, Director General, Dispute Resolution Branch; Ghislain Blanchard, Director General, Industry Regulation and Determinations Branch; and Claude Jacques, General Counsel.
[Translation]
Mr. Blanchard, go ahead please, and then we will go on to the question period.
[English]
Ghislain Blanchard, Director General, Industry Regulation and Determinations Branch, Canadian Transportation Agency: The Canadian Transportion Agency is pleased to accept the committee's invitation to be here. I will start by introducing the Canadian Transportation Agency, Canada's oldest federal regulatory body, a title we are proud of.
The agency is an independent administrative tribunal exercising its authority over federal air, rail and marine transportation, in addition to accessibility for persons with disabilities. The agency performs two key functions. As a quasi-judicial tribunal, we resolve a wide range of commercial and consumer transportation-related disputes. This work is carried out both through informal mechanisms and court-like formal adjudication.
Our second function is as an economic regulator. We make determinations and issue authorities, licences and permits to transportation carriers under federal jurisdiction. The agency's decisions are made by five full-time members who are appointed by the Governor-in-Council and supported in their work by some 260 employees.
Last fiscal year, our members dealt with more than 2,700 cases and approvals.
[Translation]
Given the agency's many duties in air transportation, all carriers operating in this country, whether Canadian or foreign, will have to eventually deal with us. As the organization responsible for issuing licences to air carriers, the agency ensures that air carriers have complied with the government's insurance, air policy, Canadian ownership and financial requirements.
The agency is also responsible for licensing international air services, thereby ensuring that air carriers are abiding by Canada's air bilateral agreements and policies.
We also provide protection for payments received by air carriers for passenger charter flights originating in Canada. Also subject to the agency's jurisdiction are tariffs, including the terms and conditions of carriage. Once a provision is placed in an airline's tariff, it must be respected by the carrier, just like any contract between a buyer and a seller.
For example, the strategy of Flight Rights Canada has been mentioned a few times at this committee in recent weeks. FRC was initially a federal government communications initiative that included a proposed code of conduct for airlines.
Last year, the four largest Canadian airlines decided to voluntarily incorporate provisions based on Flight Rights Canada into their tariffs. The result is that these new terms and conditions are now covered by the agency's jurisdiction over Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, WestJet and Air Transat.
[English]
Issues that were not previously covered can now be addressed by the agency. Such issues include tarmac delays and care to passengers in case of flight delays. The agency can address any complaints that relate to terms and conditions of carriage that should be, or are, in the air carrier tariffs.
When a complaint pertaining to a tariff is filed with the agency, its authority is limited to ensuring that the terms and conditions of the tariff are consistent with international conventions or agreements signed by Canada; that they are applied by the carrier; and that they are clear, just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.
As tariffs can be complicated, the agency is currently working to help carriers simplify these texts and better communicate these terms and conditions in language that is more easily understood by travellers.
It is important to explain a significant distinction between international and domestic tariffs. For tariffs covering international flights only, the agency has the power to act on its own initiative or motion, as well as on complaint if it perceives an inconsistency with the criteria mentioned. With respect to domestic tariffs, however, the agency may review tariffs only upon receipt of a complaint. It is also worth mentioning that the agency decisions apply only to parties specifically named in the complaint and cannot bind any other parties.
[Translation]
Before getting involved in a complaint on an issue under our jurisdiction, agency staff recommend that an attempt be made to resolve it directly with the carrier. If this does not work, the agency can act upon the complaint for matters that are within its jurisdiction. Most air traveller complaints handled by the agency are resolved with the assistance of our staff through facilitation or, in some cases, mediation.
Air carriers, passengers and the agency alike have found this informal approach to be faster, simpler and cheaper. The overwhelming majority of air travel disputes brought before the agency are resolved through facilitation. A client satisfaction survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid in 2009-2010 on behalf of the agency revealed high levels of satisfaction among users of these services.
Mediation is another alternative dispute resolution mechanism that has proven to be quite effective. With the direct aid of an agency mediator, parties jointly make decisions about ways to negotiate settlements that work for everyone. Again, the agency's client satisfaction survey results showed that respondents gave high marks to its mediation services.
If, however, these dispute resolution mechanisms do not succeed and the issue remains unresolved, the agency's formal adjudicative process remains available to either party.
That being said, every year a number of complaints are dealt with under the formal adjudicative process with decisions rendered by a panel of agency members.
In general, issues raised in air travel complaints typically range from lost baggage to flight disruptions and delays. Should the agency rule that a tariff has not been respected by an airline, it can order the carrier to apply the tariff.
A panel can also order that compensation be paid, but only for related out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a direct result of the airline's failure to respect its tariff. The agency cannot order payment of other types of compensation to the passenger, such as punitive damages. Should the agency find a tariff provision to be unreasonable or unduly discriminatory, it can allow it or substitute it for another and order other corrective measures.
Other types of complaints handled by the agency include the reasonableness of air fares on domestic routes that are served by only one airline, or if it is felt a carrier has not provided adequate notice for discontinuing service on a route.
[English]
If you review the slide deck we circulated earlier, you will notice the decline is the decline in the number of air travel complaints filed with the agency. Of particular interest is the sharp decrease since 2005, with numbers for the most recent fiscal year being less than half the five-year average. Some of the decrease may be due to fewer people travelling in recessionary times, but the most important factor is likely the major changes we made to the way we handle complaints.
For example, over the past few years, the agency has actively used communications and education initiatives to encourage passengers and carriers to work together first to find their own solutions before coming to the agency.
We have also used our website and other targeted materials to spell out our processes clearly, issues we can and cannot deal with and what outcomes can be expected realistically from us. We do not have access to the airlines' complaint statistics, but we believe that air carriers have come to realize that resolving complaints is most efficient and effective when they resolve passenger disputes themselves.
This trend might also point to the success of improved customer service, greater consistency in the application of tariff provisions by air carrier staff and efforts to resolve issues when they first arise.
Apart from handling these types of complaints, the agency also plays an important role in making the national transportation system accessible to persons with disabilities. The agency's jurisdiction in the area of accessibility covers air, rail and marine transportation, as well as extra-provincial bus services. The most significant aspect of this mandate is the removal of undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
In this area as in others, the agency's approach is to use facilitation or mediation first to assist travellers and carriers in resolving accessibility-related complaints. The agency also conducts many consultation, awareness and voluntary compliance activities pertaining to the accessibility of air services.
Since our time is limited, what we have presented today is but a snapshot of the work the agency does, with a particular focus on the air sector.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchard. We will now move on to questions from senators.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here.
I have a couple of questions. First, in your presentation on page 3, under the heading of "Agency Air Licensing Activities," I note that you completed 1,087 applications in 2009-10, but then you had 241 suspensions, which was up over the previous two years.
Can you perhaps give us some background on the suspensions? Was there a trend? Are there things we should be concerned about? With respect to the initiated complaints by an applicant, the numbers are significant under suspensions and cancellations. Can you perhaps give us some background?
Mr. Blanchard: With pleasure: The suspensions arise when an air carrier advises, for instance, they no longer have air insurance, or some air carriers might be seasonal operators that for a certain time period, cease to operate their licence. Suspensions can also arise when Transport Canada advises us that the Canadian aviation document, which is really the document that allows the operator to operate safely, has been suspended or cancelled. In all those circumstances, we suspend the licences. Some suspensions can happen on our own initiative, and some can happen at the initiative of the carrier.
Over the last few years, we have witnessed perhaps smaller air carriers going through recessionary times and finding the cost of air insurance in some of their marginal markets is too high, so they are not as willing to carry that cost any longer. For instance, small domestic carriers that may have operated internationally or in the U.S. have decided to stop flying in those markets. They have not renewed their insurance and have asked us to suspend their licences. That is one explanation.
We have not conducted a full analysis of what is behind the numbers, but that is one reason you may see those numbers.
Senator Mercer: It seems to me we would monitor the trends in case things are going on that we are not aware of and there are other problems in the industry. This industry is not the healthiest in the world, and we need to be aware of that.
At page 8, you again talk about agency air licensing activities. Page 8 outlines air complaints for Canadian carriers.
If one were to look at these numbers as raw data, they suggest that Air Canada is doing something rather spectacular because complaints have dropped from 356 to 161. Of those 161 complaints and of the 356 in the previous year, what is the resolution rate to the satisfaction of the passenger — not to the satisfaction of the airlines because it is always to the satisfaction of the airlines, at least most of the time? Is there a satisfaction rate that is measured? Has that number dropped from 356 to 161 out of the frustration of the passengers who throw up their hands and say, I will not complain because it does not do me any good?
Nina Frid, Director General, Dispute Resolution Branch, Canadian Transportation Agency: If you permit, I will answer that question, being responsible for complaints at the agency.
We attribute the decline to a number of factors. Perhaps I should say a couple of words about the facilitation process that the agency is using. It is a process by which both parties come to a mutual agreement. When the table indicates that 161 complaints against Air Canada have been resolved, that resolution means that both parties were satisfied with the outcome.
The agency, by facilitating the dialogue between the carrier and the passenger, plays a role in bridging the gap that exists and helping the passenger obtain the satisfaction they seek and, at the same time, impressing upon the air carrier that they have to abide by the terms and conditions of carriage.
Usually we see the rate of satisfaction that is reflected in these numbers.
The Ipsos Reid poll that we commissioned last year shows a high level of satisfaction by the passengers and other parties participating in our processes — they are satisfied with the way things were dealt with and the resolution that followed.
Senator Mercer: My final question is with regard to page 9. I am curious; what has Alitalia, British Airways and United done that Air France has not done? We see significant drops in numbers of complaints with those three airlines but a significant increase for Air France.
If British Airways, Alitalia and United are doing something better than Air France, then maybe we want to know what it is because some of our recommendations may be that people adopt best practices as opposed to what may not look like best practices statistically such as those for Air France.
Ms. Frid: While I cannot respond specifically for Air France vis-à-vis Alitalia, I would suggest we see a decline in the number of complaints with Air France over the five-year period as well as against other airlines. We can attribute that decline to a number of factors, one of which is certain provisions that the European Union enacted in their regulations a few years ago. Those provisions deal with passengers' rights related to delays, cancellation of flights, tarmac delays and things like that. Clearly, these provisions are something that is working well.
Also, there are various educational materials and information campaigns that the agency provided to the passengers. We have distributed booklets. Fly Smart, for example, is one publication that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the passengers and the carriers. Some of that information is provided on our website. All these foreign carriers are obligated to follow their terms and conditions of carriage and Canadian legislation when they operate in Canada or when they pick up passengers in Canada.
Senator Mercer: Perhaps at some point, we should look at those EU regulations. If they have a positive effect, we should know about them.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you for coming. I want to hear more about the travellers' complaint process.
First, however: How long has this organization been in place?
Claude Jacques, General Counsel, Canadian Transportation Agency: The agency itself has been around since 1904, if we consider that we are the successor, we have the power over the decisions and so on. We can review decisions that go back to 1904, from the first railway transportation commissioners. The agency, as it is now known, is from 1996.
Senator Cochrane: Did you start hearing complaints in 1996, and is that role in addition to what you were doing before?
Mr. Blanchard: I do not want to mislead you. I think there was an evolution in this area. At some point, there was the air transport commissioner, and that position was abolished in —
Mr. Jacques: It was abolished in 2007, but the last commissioner was in 2004.
Mr. Blanchard: It was 2004. However, the function has been integrated into the day-to-day operations of the agency. This is an ongoing line of business. I cannot say exactly when it started.
Mr. Jacques: Now I remember. It started around 2000, because each commissioner had a two-year appointment and there were two commissioners. The last commissioner was in 2004. Therefore, if I remember correctly, it started in 2000.
Senator Cochrane: I am concerned that a great many Canadians who are air travellers, certainly the ones I have spoken with, simply do not know that this complaints process exists. They knew about the airport commissioner; I can tell you that. However, they do not know anything about this agency.
What action has the Canadian Transportation Agency taken to raise awareness among Canadian travellers?
Ms. Frid: Perhaps I can address your question, senator. The agency is involved in a lot of information sharing and linking with our stakeholders, primarily through our publications and our website. We publish all the decisions on the website, and information for travellers is something we take seriously. The pages are always updated with the most current information. You have here at your disposal two of the publications that I mentioned. One is for all the passengers and the other one is focused on the passengers with disabilities.
The agency, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, is involved in a lot of outreach. However, we have to be careful in how much of that outreach we do, because we always have to be impartial and unbiased in how we review the cases and render the decisions. Every party to air transportation has to see that the agency takes seriously that impartiality and objectivity in reviewing the complaints.
Mr. Blanchard: I want to add some elements. I am responsible for some areas that address some aspects of your question.
We have also worked with carriers to ensure that the terms and conditions are available on the website. That was one of the provisions in Bill C-11. We are working with carriers to ensure this availability. We have ensured we have 100 per cent compliance rates, domestically, with that requirement and we are working with international carriers to reach that rate, as well. So far, we have achieved more than 50 per cent compliance and we continue to make progress towards the goal of 100 per cent.
We have also developed a sign to advise passengers at the airports or business offices of the carriers that the terms and conditions of the carriers are available at the office and that they can access the services of the Canadian Transportation Agency. As we speak now, I have compliance officers working at airports to ensure this requirement is met.
Senator Cochrane: This is a public service, is it not? This whole organization provides a public service. This comment was restricted to what you were saying, Ms. Frid. The public is not aware of it, whether they do not have computers or whether they do not look it up.
They complain to the airlines. Your number of 2,700 complaints likely is not accurate, because if they complain to the airlines, that is another sector.
Mr. Blanchard: The 2,700 number reflects more than air travel. It reflects all the cases addressed by members. I am not sure if we are referring to the same number here. I referred in my speech to 2,700. I am not sure if you are referring to that number. That was not the number of complaints. That number represented all the decisions made by the agency.
Senator Cochrane: How many complaints did you receive? Do you have a figure?
Ms. Frid: Yes: It is on page 5 in the deck we submitted. We show that we have resolved 345 air-transport-related disputes in 2009-10. Of these disputes, 329 were resolved by facilitation and 16 were resolved through the formal adjudication process.
You can also see that the number of complaints is declining. I suggest to you that, a few years ago, there were probably two or three times the number of complaints we see today. As my colleague mentioned in his speech, we have made a number of changes to be more efficient and to serve passengers better, and the airlines have also made a number of changes. We believe that the current process is working well for all parties, which is what we rely on when we look at the results of the customer service survey, the poll conducted last year.
Senator Cochrane: It is not working well with the public I have been speaking with. I have travelled often and I hear a lot of complaints. Is there something more that you can do to inform the public that your agency is there and that they can call you, write you or whatever?
Ms. Frid: Absolutely. There is always more we can do. We are striving to provide more information and broader outreach to all the travelling public.
Another point I want to suggest is that the agency has limited authority and jurisdiction in terms of the types of complaints we can deal with. We are not authorized to deal with certain complaints that are related to what we call the level of service. That type is another area, and there are certain other areas where the agency has no jurisdiction.
Our jurisdiction is related to the terms and conditions of carriage, which are specified in the tariff. On page 6 of the deck, for example, we are talking about the various problems with the baggage: flight disruption, denied boarding and refusal to transport. We are authorized by Parliament to deal with these types of complaints. There are more complaints than that, but we simply cannot process them.
Senator Cochrane: Yes, but the complaints are the same complaints the airport commissioner dealt with in 2000-01, and the public knew about him or her.
Ms. Frid: It was him and then it was her. That is right.
Should Parliament decide to reinstitute the commissioner or whatever direction given to the agency, we will implement it as an administrative body; we will implement the policy and the direction.
Senator Cochrane: I am not suggesting that. I suggest maybe you can look at this issue, please, because the public needs information.
Ms. Frid: Thank you.
Senator Cochrane: I live in a community that, like many across this country, has seen air service cut almost completely. Are there any options available to people and businesses in smaller communities where airlines have drastically slashed, or sometimes altogether cut, air service. Is there anything they can do to have service reinstated once it has gone?
Mr. Blanchard: On that point, there is a provision in the Canada Transportation Act that provides for the discontinuance of air services. The mandate of the agency with respect to that matter is limited. It is limited to ensuring that the discontinuance process is followed. If it is not followed, a complaint can be filed with the agency that it has not been followed.
The other power we have is to diminish the time period for which the notice is given. However, we have no authority under our act to force carriers to continue to provide services. As you know, the Canadian domestic marketplace essentially has been deregulated. Market entry requirements are based on certain tests that carriers must meet when they enter. Once they enter, the marketplace determines whether the service needs to be provided or not. That determination is entrenched in the Canada Transportation Act. That is the mandate we must apply.
Senator Cochrane: I do not mean to force them, but in a congenial way.
Mr. Blanchard: We are a creature of statute. My friend Mr. Jacques reminds me of that continually, which means we cannot exercise powers that have not been given to us under the act.
Senator Zimmer: Senator Cochrane raises a good point in her first question. It is the iceberg model; of eight complaints, usually only one makes its way through because people are happy to get off the plane and are rushing to go somewhere.
Do you have the authority to put information in the little pouch in front of the seat? En Route puts their magazine there. Do you have the ability to put a complaint form or a "how is our service" form there so passengers can fill it out and give it to the agent when they leave? Can you provide that form on airline carriers and put it right in the package? Then passengers will have it right there. When they leave the plane, they do not know who to call and by the time they are into the cab, they say, Forget it; I will do it next time.
Do you have the ability or authority to provide that form?
Mr. Jacques: We would have to look into that question. I do not think there is anything related to that in our powers.
Mr. Blanchard: As I mentioned, we are already providing that information in a certain way because we are working with airports and other carriers to put signs in business offices where they operate indicating that the terms and conditions of carriage, which is the contract between the passenger and the carrier, are available in the business office. We have developed a standard bilingual sign, and we are encouraging — more than that at times — carriers to put up that sign to ensure that passengers are aware they have access to the terms and conditions of carriage and that the agency exists.
We have not gone the route you indicate, which is to go to individual airlines and ensure that a pamphlet is available in the aircraft itself. I do not know if we can legally do that, but that is another question.
Senator Plett: I have flown almost weekly for the last seven years, and while in the Senate over the last year, as have most senators around the table this morning. My question as well is with regard to complaints, and further to Senator Cochrane's questions.
In the last seven years, I do not know how many flight disruptions I have had. I never knew I had a commission that I could complain to. I have whined and complained to the airline many times to absolutely no avail. You will hear from me on a regular basis after today, I think.
My question is this: With respect to flight disruptions, delays and cancellations, if there is a complaint about them, how is it resolved? Can you give me an example of how you would resolve something if I were to call you and tell you that Air Canada cancelled my flight from Winnipeg, which they have done on occasion, and said, "Sorry, fly some other time." If I were to call you about that, what would you do about it?
Ms. Frid: There are two sides to your question. One is the process, and the other is what actually can be done. In terms of the process, we will ask you, if you bring your concern to us, whether you tried to resolve it with the carrier. Say you have tried and you did not receive a response, then we will intervene and use our facilitation process, which is that we will contact the carrier. We have a list of contacts for all the carriers that operate. We will bring your concern to their attention and start looking into it, what we call the investigation process.
It is important to remember that we can only look into matters under our jurisdiction. In this case, if the flight was cancelled, that matter would fall under our jurisdiction. We would also look into the terms and conditions of carriage or the tariff. When you purchase your tickets, you purchase them under certain conditions. We will look into those conditions.
The carrier is obligated, according to its tariff, to take you from Point A to Point B. If something happens, depending on the reason the flight was cancelled, they should provide you with an alternative ticket or an alternative way to travel to where you are going, they should reimburse you for the unused portion of the ticket or they should offer you a different flight on a different date. Those different types of actions are specified in the tariff.
We will bring those obligations to the carrier's attention and determine what your desired outcome is at the point where you are communicating with us; whether you would prefer to be reimbursed or rebooked, et cetera. In all those cases, we usually reach a resolution whereby the carrier will abide by its tariff and by its terms and conditions of carriage to your satisfaction.
In rare cases — and you will see the statistics; there were about 16 in 2009-10 — this process of facilitation does not work and the passenger is still dissatisfied, in which case the passenger can then use the agency's formal process to file a complaint and the agency will adjudicate it. That means that the chair of the agency will appoint a panel of members — they are independent and appointed by order-in-council — who will review the case on the basis of the evidence provided by the passenger and the evidence provided by the carrier.
As an administrative tribunal, we use the rules of natural justice that apply to the process, which means that the passenger will know what the carrier is providing and the carrier will know the information the passenger is providing. After an exchange of that information, the agency members will render a decision. If the agency finds that the carrier did not follow the tariff, then it will order the carrier to follow the tariff and either reimburse or rebook, any of the measures that I specified.
[Translation]
Senator Fox: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question concerns the heading "Fares and charges," which appears on page 6 of your document. All Canadians probably know that air fares stated in newspaper and magazine advertisements do not reflect the actual total cost the consumer will ultimately have to pay. I believe it is the cost that the airline has set.
Do you have a view on this? Have you received complaints on this matter? Should the advertised price not reflect the total cost of the flight that a consumer will have to pay?
Mr. Blanchard: Yes. As you know, Canada's Transport Act contains a provision concerning this matter. If I remember correctly, it is subsection 86(1). It has not yet been enacted by the Governor-in-Council. Until it has been enacted by the Governor-in-Council, the agency does not have authority to make regulations on this question.
With regard to complaints, I am going to let my colleague answer.
As for political issues, we are unfortunately unable to comment on that aspect. Being an administrative tribunal, we carry out the mandate that is given to us. We do not determine whether or not we should carry out a mandate.
Senator Fox: You have no recommendation to make as an administrative tribunal?
Mr. Blanchard: We generally avoid political debates because we are a tribunal. We essentially carry out the mandate that is given to us. If we had to state a political view, that would undermine the agency's impartiality. We prefer to refrain from commenting.
Senator Fox: There is "politics" and there is "policy." You nevertheless have a certain amount of expertise. I cannot wait to hear the answer about the number of complaints.
Mr. Jacques: Transport Canada establishes the policies that are then entrenched in the enabling statute, and we administer the enabling statute. We are not involved in policy.
Senator Fox: All right.
[English]
Ms. Frid: In terms of fares and charges, the agency has no jurisdiction to deal with advertising. Say the advertised fare is $100, and then there are a number of fees and charges on top of that. Those types of complaints must be referred to Transport Canada; we do not have jurisdiction. We deal with the tariffs; that is, what is specified in the tariff. If the carrier is not following the tariff — its own conditions of carriage — then we can intervene.
[Translation]
Senator Fox: The solution to this problem clearly does not lie with you.
Mr. Blanchard: Let us say that the debate is not with us.
Senator Fox: With regard to denied boarding, one case was recently publicized. It was not a denial of boarding, but an instance in which boarding should possibly have been denied because the person in question did not want to remove her veil at the security checkpoint. I do not know whether airline staff or someone else let the person go through. Do you have jurisdiction over this kind of situation? Was a complaint filed following that incident, or did that simply raise a public outcry?
Mr. Jacques: The jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency is purely economic, irrespective of transport accessibility. We have no safety, security or technical mandate. We are not involved at that level.
Mr. Blanchard: However, there is one factor in the terms and conditions of carriage that concerns refusal to transport. The airlines must therefore have a policy on this issue. If they do not comply with their policy, that could constitute grounds for filing a complaint.
Ms. Frid: The answer is virtually the same as for the last question.
[English]
When we have the issue of denied boarding because of overbooking, for example, there are certain provisions the carriers incorporated into their tariff recently. The provisions are similar to those of Flight Rights Canada referred to earlier. Carriers have to follow certain steps, see if they can find volunteers and offer another ticket for a different date in the case of an overbooking.
In other words, carriers have several measures they are required to offer to the passenger if, for some reason, the flight is overbooked and they cannot board a certain passenger or passengers. This tariff can then serve as a basis for a complaint. If the carrier did not offer all those accommodations, the passenger can complain to the agency on those points.
[Translation]
Mr. Blanchard: If I may add another point, denied boarding appears in the carriage contract of every carrier. Every carrier must have separate policies on this issue. For example, some may say that if individuals are intoxicated, they will not be allowed on the aircraft; that if someone arrives with a gun, they will not accept him. If there is a complaint, it is with respect to the terms and conditions included in the tariff.
Senator Fox: I nevertheless consider the situation somewhat ironic. Going back to that woman who was veiled and who refused to remove her veil for security purposes, if she had been denied boarding, she could have complained, but the people who saw her board cannot complain of the contrary. There is nevertheless a certain irony in the situation.
Mr. Blanchard: I believe it is technically possible for a passenger to say either that the airline should have denied access in accordance with its tariff — or is it. . .
Senator Fox: And she could have complained.
Mr. Blanchard: . . . or say that the rules governing its tariff were unreasonable, and therefore that certain rules should have been included in order to prevent this kind of situation. There would have been possible grounds for complaint in that context.
Senator Fox: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Merchant: My question is about the operation of the airports. Since the government gave up the responsibility of running the airports, it seems they have been turned over to private interests and there is not much accountability or transparency.
Every airport seems to have its own rules by which it is run. Sometimes some of the airports are nice, but we do not spend a lot of time in them; we do not live in them. However, airports spend a lot of money on upgrading and improvements. That means the travellers pay for them. Yet there is not any way for the traveller to be aware of why airports make these improvements. These bodies are unelected; they are only appointed bodies and they seem to have a lot of money to spend.
Are you concerned about the way that airports are now run? Do you have questions about it, or are passengers and travellers not aware that they can come to you and raise some of these concerns?
Mr. Blanchard: The agency does not have any economic authority over airports. There was a bill a few years ago, Bill C- 27, I think. It was not passed, but it would have given some authority to the agency over airports. We do not have economic authority.
Accessibility, though, is a different matter.
Ms. Frid: Regarding accessibility, as my colleague mentioned in the beginning, the agency has the mandate to remove any undue obstacles for people with disabilities when they travel in the federal transportation system. On that score, we ensure that airport terminals are accessible for people with various disabilities, which include mobility impairments as well as hearing and visual impairments, et cetera. This is where our mandate ends with regard to the airports.
Senator Merchant: Do you have any authority or involvement in security?
Ms. Frid: None at all, no.
Senator Merchant: Security, too, varies from airport to airport. It is confusing for travellers because they do not know what they can bring through but you have nothing to do with security.
Ms. Frid: No.
Senator Merchant: Those are my frustrations but you cannot answer my questions.
Ms. Frid: I apologize.
Senator Frum: We are seeing in the United States a consumer revolt as to what is described as airport groping at the security desk. A number of consumer movements have begun in protest. There does not seem to be that problem in Canada, but can you comment if appearance is the reality, that there is not the same level of consumer anger about the security process?
Mr. Blanchard: Again, we have no mandate with respect to security. It is not something that the agency monitors.
Senator Frum: No, I understand that, but you would be the recipient of the complaints if they came in. Is that right? With respect to the organizations and the set-up in the U.S., here they would presumably come to you. It would appear there is not the same level of anger in Canada.
Ms. Frid: Based on the information we have, though we do not track it statistically as we track other complaints, it does not seem that we receive many calls in relation to what you are asking.
Senator Frum: Clearly, there are different techniques and standards between air security in the United States and Canada, but I appreciate why that issue is not a question for you today.
Mr. Blanchard: In Canada, as you know, we have the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA. It may be that some of those concerns are being funnelled there as opposed to coming to the agency. The U.S. does not have something equivalent, so that may explain why that is happening. I will not comment on this because that is not an area we are responsible for.
Senator Frum: Within the last few weeks, I understand your agency issued licences to Cutter Aviation for routes into Canada three times a week. These licences were approved only last week. It is interesting because, famously, the United Arab Emirates were denied a licence.
Can you walk us through the process of how an application is approved or why one is approved and another is not? Can you explain the process?
Mr. Blanchard: We are dealing with international air licences, I presume, in this case. The requirements are stated in the act. There are two types of licences: one for scheduled services and one for non-scheduled services.
When it comes to scheduled services, if they are Canadian — they must be Canadian, to start with. They then must have a Canadian aviation document, which is a safety document saying they can fly safely. That is not issued by the agency but by Transport Canada.
They will also need insurance. There is a requirement to be met in that respect. In some cases, if they are a large- or medium-sized operation, they need to be financially fit. There is a financial fitness test, which is a market entry requirement, not an ongoing requirement, that needs to be met.
Finally, they should not have sold their services in the prior year. Those are the basic requirements.
If they are Canadian, they have to be designated by the minister. If they are not Canadian, they must be designated by the foreign country and then be issued a licence by same.
The discretion of the agency when it comes to issuing a licence is limited. Once those conditions are met, and that is where we exercise our discretion, then the licence shall be issued according to the act.
For non-Canadians — obviously they do not have to be Canadian — they need to have specific authority from their government to operate in Canada. These are the basic requirements.
Who designates the airlines is not within our purview. It is the prerogative of the Minister of Transport and the foreign authority. Once those conditions are met, we take that application on board and issue a licence.
Senator Frum: What is the duration of the licence?
Mr. Blanchard: If it is a normal licence, there is no expiry date. There are some licences we issue for a limited time period, but that is an exception. I will not go there because it becomes technical.
Overall, licences are issued forever, as long as carriers meet the conditions under which they received their licence. If they continue to meet those conditions, they are entitled to hold that licence. If they cease to meet those conditions — for example, if they do not have insurance — then we will suspend or cancel their licence.
Senator Frum: How do you monitor those conditions? How do you ensure that the insurance is in place, for example?
Mr. Blanchard: Every year, my staff looks at the expiry dates of insurance policies. Staff reminds carriers that if they have not done so already, they must renew their insurance. If carriers have not done so by the expiry date of the insurance, we will suspend or cancel the licence.
With respect to the Civil Aviation Directive, we have an agreement with Transport Canada. They will advise us when the CAD is suspended or cancelled and we then act on that information diligently.
Senator Frum: Has that ever happened? Have you ever had to do that?
Mr. Blanchard: Yes, often; we deal with that daily. If you look at the statistics in the deck, you will see we have hundreds of suspensions or cancellations per year, either initiated by the applicant or by the agency.
Senator Plett: I asked my question earlier, but I am not satisfied with the response. I need to know how I can do this.
First, let me ask this question before I return to the other one. On the fifth slide, of the airline related disputes resolved, there are 345 that you resolved. Out of how many complaints is that?
Ms. Frid: Out of over 600; 642 to be exact.
Senator Plett: Your agency received only 642 complaints in one year? Those are all the complaints you received?
Ms. Frid: Air-related complaints, yes.
Senator Plett: That number includes delays and baggage?
Ms. Frid: That is right.
Senator Plett: The complaints you receive are miniscule versus the complaints that someone else receives. Surely there are far more unhappy people than 642 in one year.
Ms. Frid: I will specify that we are talking about complaints within our jurisdiction. There are probably other complaints that we are not authorized to process.
Senator Plett: I appreciate that. I am not one to flog this horse, but I had two pieces of luggage that were damaged in the last year and, frankly, Air Canada treated me very well. Some of us have a privilege. We have certain designations because of the amount of flying we do. I believe showing that card probably helps us in some of our disputes. However, not everyone has that privilege.
I know that Air Canada alone would have far more than 642 unhappy people about luggage not showing up, being late, being damaged, et cetera. The delays also would be a concern.
I ask you again to give me an example of how you would deal — and I will give you a clearer example here. On occasion, certainly not as a senator, I have flown in for a meeting where I may have been paid for my services. For example, that is the only reason I may go to Vancouver. Because of malfunctioning equipment, the airline cancels my flight or delivers me there four hours after the meeting is over. I have no other reason to go there. You say you resolve these complaints to the satisfaction of the customer. The only way I will be satisfied is if I am paid the money that I would have been paid if I had been on time and the organization somehow had their speaker in time for their meeting.
How would you resolve that complaint to the satisfaction of all the people involved? I cannot understand how you would resolve that complaint.
Ms. Frid: The agency does not have the authority or the power to award damages. That power would fall into the category if you were supposed to be paid for your services and, as a result of your flight cancellation, you were not able to be where you were supposed to be to deliver the service for which you were supposed to be paid. We are not authorized to do it; the legislation does not give us that authority.
The only thing we can do is deal with your actual ticket, which goes back to the conditions and terms of the carriage. If your flight is cancelled, the air carrier should reimburse you for the unused portion of your ticket, offer you an alternative ticket at a different date and so on.
I will also mention that while the agency deals with the cases on a case-by-case basis as a tribunal, and the decisions apply to the parties of the specific cases, the agency can disallow certain portions of the tariff or can order the air carrier to review the tariff if we find that it is unclear or discriminatory, or based on any of the four criteria that my colleague outlined. We try to review the tariff so that we do not have future instances where people face the same problems you, for instance, have faced. Unfortunately, we cannot order the airline to reimburse you for "foregone" revenue.
Senator Plett: Therefore, instead of 642 complaints, you might have received 10,642, but you received only 642 that you could deal with. Is that correct?
Ms. Frid: Precisely.
Senator Plett: With all due respect, we need to do something about either giving you more jurisdiction or finding some different mechanism. It seems to me that there are more things you are not allowed to do than you are allowed to do.
Senator Johnson: I have a supplementary question to Senator Plett's comments.
You used to have an air travel complaints commissioner, and this commissioner was eliminated and integrated into the agency in 2006 to deal with the complaints that Senator Plett speaks about. How does this integration compare, and is it working as well as the previous situation? Why was it changed?
Ms. Frid: Thank you for your question. The air travel complaints commissioner was part of the agency.
Senator Johnson: In terms of the optics for the public, there was a specific entity as opposed to now, where it is integrated.
Ms. Frid: The commissioner was like a member of the agency. The same staff that supported the commissioner are now supporting other members of the agency and processing complaints.
We have had a number of years to adjust. We learned from our experiences and put in place a number of mechanisms that we believe allow us to deliver our services more efficiently and effectively. This is one of the reasons why we believe the number of complaints has declined.
We try to use informal dispute resolution mechanisms, which usually work better than more formal ones. There is evidence that approach works better in the airline industry and in other sectors such as rail and marine. When the disputes are resolved on a commercial basis between the parties, we find that both parties are usually satisfied.
When the decision is made by the agency in the formal adjudicative process, usually one party is more satisfied than the other because the agency will rule like the courts.
Mr. Blanchard: We see only the tip of the iceberg; most of the complaints are handled by the airline companies themselves. I had staff who worked for the airline complaint division, and the numbers they saw there were far greater than what we see at theaagency.
When we look at those trends, we have to bear in mind also that most of the complaints are resolved by the airlines themselves.
Senator Housakos: My first question is with regard to providing services to disabled travellers. All of us have seen through the years that airports have gone the extra mile in providing good services to disabled travellers in terms of ramps and ensuring they have accessibility to all the various services the airport offers. I think you alluded to that area being under your jurisdiction, guidance and influence.
My question is with regard to the airlines. What is your jurisdiction? How do you go about policing them in terms of what their services are and how they offer services to the disabled? I would like your point of view on that area.
I also want your point of view on how Canadian airline carriers are comparable to international carriers and other North American carriers in offering services to disabled travellers.
Ms. Frid: I will be delighted to tell you about the services that exist and the progress that has been made by all the various players in regard to accommodation for people with disabilities.
The agency's jurisdiction in this area is broad. The ability of people with various disabilities to access the national transportation network is considered a human right. I probably should clarify that, as a federal administrative tribunal, we have jurisdiction over federal transportation undertakings. Therefore, if the undertaking is a provincial operation, we do not have jurisdiction. Luckily, in terms of the airline industry, all major airports and airlines are federal, so we have jurisdiction over them.
As you have indicated, the airports need to be fully accessible, and we know that all the major airports are. In terms of the airlines, the airlines provide a number of services. They have to provide wheelchair service, if necessary. If a passenger has his or her own mobility aid, which can be a wheelchair, airlines have to transport it in their baggage hold and offer an airline wheelchair that is able to move in the aisle. The washrooms have to be accessible, and they are.
We also have a number of provisions that the airlines follow. I will explain how we monitor those provisions. Providing security briefing, and advising the passengers of where the emergency exits are and what kinds of services are provided is in Braille and other formats. The airlines know, through their manifest, if there is a passenger who requires special assistance, and they will approach that passenger and offer that assistance. Sometimes the passengers like to self-identify; in other instances they do not. That service is not forced on the passenger; airlines simply offer the service, and staff are all trained to provide assistance.
There is still work to be done. For example, we had complaints from passengers that the on-flight entertainment system is not fully accessible. However, people can for the most part travel well within the Canadian transportation system and the airlines.
We also deal with a number of other instances. A decision was rendered by the agency, which we call "one person, one fare." If a person requires an assistant, the airline cannot charge a separate fare for that assistance, because it is required for the person who is disabled. Also if a person is disabled by virtue of being obese, again only one fare is charged to that person.
Your last point was regarding how we compare to the international community and other airlines. We believe that the Canadian system is probably one of the most accessible systems.
We provide a number of voluntary codes of practice on the training of personnel, on the accessibility of terminals, on how the tactile markers are supposed to be installed in the rows, and we monitor compliance.
Our indication is that from 100 per cent to 90 per cent of all air carriers comply with those codes and standards. We have a good compliance rate. Through the survey, clients indicate to us that they are mostly satisfied.
Senator Housakos: I am glad you brought up the issue of one passenger, one fare. Is that approach unique to Canada?
Ms. Frid: I believe so.
Senator Housakos: If I understand the program correctly, you oblige Canadian national carriers to charge only one fare for obese people who need more than one seat, correct?
Ms. Frid: Yes.
Senator Housakos: Are they supplied extra space as they require it? Do the airlines provide that extra seat? Currently under this program, I assume they pay for one fare, but if they are large people — even some less-than-large people do not fit into some of the seats that the air carriers provide — in this instance, would the carrier, be it Air Canada or another airline, provide a large individual a second seat for the price of one fare?
Ms. Frid: The requirement is that if a person requires two seats and the person is disabled by being obese, then the airline will charge that person one fare.
Senator Housakos: Will the airline offer them a larger seat? That is what is currently happening.
Ms. Frid: That is right, yes.
Senator Housakos: Can you distinguish for us between the Flight Rights Canada program and what your tribunal does? Is there a parallel or overlap? What is the distinction between your tribunal and Flight Rights Canada?
Mr. Blanchard: The Flight Rights Canada initiative was initially a communication initiative launched with carriers and the Minister of Transport to advise passengers of their rights. It evolved into a code of conduct and then into adoption by the four major carriers of terms and conditions of carriage that reflected the provisions of Flight Rights Canada.
We have jurisdiction over those provisions because the four major carriers in Canada have filed those provisions in their tariff. The provisions cover things like what carriers will do for you as a passenger if you are, say, four hours late. The provisions say they will provide a meal voucher. If you are eight hours late and if you have to stay overnight, carriers will provide for accommodations. If you stay on the tarmac for more than 90 minutes, they will provide, if possible, a snack and beverage. You will find these provisions in the Flight Rights Canada initiative.
All those provisions are subject to certain conditions. I will not go through the details of the wording, but a concept is built into these provisions that allows carriers to say, We are not supposed to give you this because it was not within our control, because it was due to a storm or whatever.
Those provisions are in the tariff of the four major carriers, and we can exercise jurisdiction over those terms and conditions. Maybe I should let Ms. Frid speak about complaints.
Ms. Frid: This situation is similar to what I submitted to the committee earlier, that if this situation is specified in the terms and conditions of carriage — for example, with respect to a tarmac delay of an hour, the carrier must provide electrical generation, waste removal, food and water and opportunity to disembark. Once a condition is in the tariff, we can process complaints if someone files a complaint that the carrier did not provide electrical generation, waste removal, food and water and so on for a tarmac delay.
If the complaint is something else that falls outside the tariff, we will advise that we cannot process the complaint because it is not within our jurisdiction.
Senator Martin: I do not know if this question was asked because I had to step out for a few moments. Regarding tourist travellers in Canada, are the statistics you provide regarding the number of complaints of all Canadian flyers? It says on page 9 foreign carriers, then on the next two pages, Canadian carriers and all carriers, but are the complaints listed here by Canadians? Your jurisdiction covers only complaints by Canadians, or are the complaints from people who have travelled in Canada as well? Do you deal with complaints from tourists?
Ms. Frid: I believe we do, yes. Complaints that we have against foreign carriers usually come from Canadians who have used those services and travelled on those airlines, the ones that you see listed.
Senator Martin: My question was in terms of the international community. We have this global economy, and within the airline industry, are there memorandums of understanding or agreements with other agencies and other jurisdictions? What happens to travellers in Canada and the complaints they may have?
I know we are focusing on the quality of service to Canadians, but we are also in this global economy and industry, especially with the airline industry. I am curious about those numbers as well.
Ms. Frid: I understand. In terms of the memorandum of understanding, we do not have such instruments with similar bodies in different countries. There is perhaps a reason for that, which is that as a federal administrative tribunal in Canada, we implement the law that we are authorized to administer. I am not exactly sure how it might work if we had an MOU with a similar agency in the European Union or in the United States.
Mr. Blanchard: I will add something to that point. Normally in our bilateral agreements with foreign countries, we have a clause that says we reserve the right to apply consumer protection rights, processes or laws of Canada. That clause is a standard feature of our bilateral agreements.
There might be cases where — and there have been a few cases in the past — our view about a certain matter differs from the view of a foreign authority that also has jurisdiction over the same matter. In those agreements, we have a bilateral dispute resolution process, if you will. However, these cases happen rarely.
Senator Martin: In terms of Canadians whose language may not be English or French, do you have officers who deal with complaints in other languages, or a consultant or others that you may use in the process?
Ms. Frid: In my experience, we have never had a passenger who has tried to file a complaint or access the agency in a different language. We do not have such capacity.
However, if we had a case, I suppose we would see how we can help that passenger reach the agency process and have access to justice.
Senator Martin: I would think that Canada, being a multicultural society, would have various community organizations. Often the consulate offices have consul ministers who work with different government agencies. I am sure that issue is something that can be worked out for the future.
I was thinking that new Canadians, as they learn English and French, will also have situations where they need to have their complaints heard and whatnot. That issue is a good piece to follow up on.
I have another question with regard to communications. I can imagine with your agency and the commissions, other agencies, various stakeholders and bodies that have their own jurisdictional territories that — although your agency, in and of itself, is effective, you do what you do and you provide your service — there could be important synergy and collaboration with other agencies.
In terms of your communication strategies or how you work with other authorities and agencies, et cetera, is there a regular communication? Is there a specific communication strategy that you roll out every year?
What kinds of communication strategies do you have in place to ensure that all these pieces are connected, rather than working in silos?
Mr. Blanchard: First, we have a close relationship with Transport Canada because they provide the policy mandate. All of us here meet on a regular basis with our colleagues to understand better the policy environment.
We also have issues we need to deal with at times. For example, we are involved in bilateral agreements with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Transport Canada. We are part of that team. When the mandate is created and when the negotiation takes place, we are a part of that process. That is one aspect.
The other thing is that we have regular contact with industry. That contact is a strong priority for our chair; he wants us to have a lot of outreach with industry. We meet with airlines all the time and we maintain good contact with them.
I also have my staff, and part of my staff is responsible for international agreements. They become involved in meeting with their foreign counterparts in the United States and Europe. We are aware broadly of what is happening, because it may have ripple effects on what we are responsible for.
Senator Johnson: We dealt with the interests of the travelling public. Your mandate also extensively includes licensing and charter permits to Canadian and foreign air carriers offering services in Canada, and enforcing licensing requirements. You participate in the negotiation and implementation of international air agreements and administer international air tariffs.
Can you elaborate on these functions of the agency and tell us how well you are able to fulfill this mandate? Does the mandate enable you to engage in these activities?
Mr. Blanchard: Bilateral air agreements are a tripartite effort involving Transport Canada, DFAIT and the CTA. The mandate for the negotiation is established essentially by Transport Canada. The actual negotiation takes place under the leadership of DFAIT. We support this process by providing support service when it comes to the "doing business" environment.
In the agreement itself, we are the owner of part of this process. We coordinate across the federal family the provisions that should be embedded in bilateral air agreements to ensure we have a favourable "doing business" environment with Canadians. We deal with things like repatriation of profits, labour issues, whether businesses can use their own employees in foreign countries, the kinds of treatment they will receive when they are operating in a foreign country and whether it will be based on a non-discriminatory kind of arrangement. We deal with those kinds of issues, and we are responsible for that part.
We also provide feedback to that process, because we are administering on a day-to-day basis the licensing activities of Canada. We are aware of what is happening in the marketplace on a refined basis. We provide input to the negotiation based on what we see at our end.
We also apply the law. Once the agreement is in place, someone has to apply the agreement. We have the authority to issue the licences and our extra bilateral authorities based on our understanding of what was negotiated.
That is for the bilateral side.
When it comes to air tariffs, domestic tariffs do not need to be filed with the agency. However, internationally, there is a requirement for filing the terms and conditions of carriers. In particular, in some markets carriers also have to file the fares. We ensure that those filings are in accordance with international convention.
For instance, we signed the Montreal Convention. The Carriage by Air Act followed in 2003. There are certain liability provisions in that act, so we ensure, for instance, the tariffs that are filed conform to that convention. It is only an example of what we do with respect to tariffs.
Senator Johnson: Does anyone else have anything to say? No.
Senator Mercer: I want to switch to in-flight safety issues. We talked about disabled passengers.
Regarding luggage, it seems to me as we have progressed, particularly since airlines have been a little more restrictive on checked luggage, more people are travelling with unchecked luggage, since we do not want to lose our luggage.
However, it seems to me that more people probably are being hurt in airplanes today by luggage falling out of the bin above. I do not know how many times we have all seen things falling out of the bin above. Have you had complaints about that issue specifically?
Ms. Frid: No, I am afraid we have not had any specific instances where luggage has fallen and someone was injured or hurt in any way by it.
Senator Mercer: You will soon.
Mr. Jacques: We do not have authority over cabin safety. That is a Transport Canada function.
Senator Mercer: With respect to checked luggage, if I were to check luggage and not board the plane, my understanding of the process is that they would then remove my luggage from the plane. I would have to claim it later, I guess.
However, if I show up at the airport, check my luggage, show up at the gate and they have overbooked the flight, my luggage is on the plane. In other words, the plane leaves without me but my luggage is on the plane. That situation passes muster.
I understand from at least one case that I saw that it happens. Is that situation allowed? It amazes me that if the airline removes the luggage because I did not show up at the gate, it would allow my luggage to go because I was left behind in the oversold group. Terrorists and those people are not totally stupid. They can figure out this situation and perhaps find themselves in that position — away goes the luggage.
Ms. Frid: The requirement to reconcile passengers with their luggage stems from the Air India experience and the recent report. However, the agency has no mandate or jurisdiction over security.
Senator Mercer: Who does?
Ms. Frid: Transport Canada.
Senator Mercer: When they are back before the committee, we will have a talk with them. I have seen what I described happen at least once: The luggage left and the passenger was standing there. Fortunately, nothing happened, but it could have.
Senator Plett: I know we are studying air travel here. Is your organization also responsible for trains and buses? The same thing we have asked here today on air travel applies to other forms of transportation, does it not?
Mr. Jacques: Our mandate is mainly for freight trains. That is the main thing. For accessibility purposes, we have jurisdiction over VIA Rail. The same thing applies to marine on accessibility matters. Otherwise, our mandate is fairly restricted.
On the marine operation, for instance, we deal with complaints with respect to pilotage, and we administer the Coasting Trade Act and so on. We do not have the same power with respect to passengers for marine and rail services. As for buses, we have jurisdiction for accessibility purposes on extra-provincial bus services.
Senator Plett: Senator Mercer alluded to handicap and disability issues and then did not ask the question I thought he might.
In this booklet we were given, Take Charge of Your Travel, I found something interesting. I want to be on one of these airplanes one time where "washrooms can accommodate on-board wheelchairs." Every airplane I have been on has a hard time accommodating me. I am not sure how those washrooms can accommodate wheelchairs. What airplanes accommodate wheelchairs?
Ms. Frid: I can respond to that question. As a matter of fact, I was on an airplane only last week and I asked the flight attendant to show me how wheelchairs are accommodated. If you go to the back of the cabin, there are two washrooms facing each other and there is usually a curtain. The flight attendant will take out the airplane wheelchair, which is a folding chair. It has no armrests, but it is wide enough to pass through the aisle.
Senator Plett: I have seen them.
Ms. Frid: The flight attendant will help the person to transfer from their seat to the wheelchair, wheel that chair towards the washroom, close the curtain so they can open the door fully, and then wheel the person into the washroom. Those washrooms and wheelchairs are designed for the wheelchair to fit in. There are special armrests in the washroom that allow the person to grab onto and transfer onto the seat. Indeed, this area is designed to make it possible to use a wheelchair.
Of course, those accommodations are available on the larger aircraft. In fact, our standards apply to aircraft that carry over 30 passengers; a fixed-wing aircraft with over 30 passengers. On a smaller aircraft, this accommodation certainly remains a challenge.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. I was not aware of that.
Senator Mercer: I have a small supplementary question on something that Senator Plett raised in the first part of his question. Do you also have responsibility for Atlantic ferry service from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland? Is that part of the mandate?
Mr. Blanchard: On accessibility matters, yes it is.
Senator Mercer: Is it only on accessibility?
Mr. Blanchard: Yes.
Senator Mercer: It is not on other matters?
Mr. Blanchard: Potentially, there could be Coasting Trade Act applications, but that is a different matter. If they wanted to use a foreign ship for their own purpose, they might come to the agency, but that would be the limited exception to what I have said.
Senator Merchant: I, too, have a question that is not related to our study. Since the door has been opened by others, I will ask my question. I come from Western Canada, and this is something I know about.
A couple of years ago, the CTA ruled, in essence, that CNRail and CP Rail had been deceiving the CTA for over 10 years. Farmers, mostly westerners, had paid almost $2 billion more than they should have. Do you know the case I am talking about?
Ms. Frid: Is that the revenue cap on grain?
Senator Merchant: Is there anything the government can do to enhance your capacity to obtain information and get the grain-shipping decisions right on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Blanchard: I am responsible for the revenue cap. That program has been in existence for almost a decade now. It is legislated in the Canada Transportation Act. The program provides for a scheme whereby the railways cannot charge more than a certain amount for the movement of Western grain. We administer that program. We set the volume-related composite price index, VRCPI, which is essentially an index of inflation for the railways. That index allows railways to determine how much they can charge in the following crop year. We then assess, at the end of the crop year, whether the railways have lived within their cap.
The program is what it is, because it is legislated. If there was a will to change the program, this change would not come from the agency but from Parliament. Essentially, we are doing what we are asked to do.
Senator Merchant: What is the solution for the Western farmer if they are being overcharged, in this case by over $2 billion?
Mr. Blanchard: If they exceed the revenue cap, we can ask them to send that money to the Western Grains Research Foundation. There is a penalty. It is not only the amount that must be given back to the Western Grains Research Foundation; it is the amount plus a penalty.
In terms of the overall design of the program, I suggest that if you have concerns, that you make those representations to Transport Canada, because that issue is not something we can deal with. We administer the program that we have been given.
Mr. Jacques: I believe there is a class action in that respect.
Senator Merchant: I am aware of it, yes.
Mr. Jacques: There is presently a class action with respect to that $2 billion that is alleged to have been overpaid.
Senator Merchant: Yes; thank you for your indulgence.
The Chair: Ms. Frid, Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Jacques, thank you for your presence here today.
Before closing, I remind members that tomorrow we will meet at 6:45 to hear from the Canadian Airports Council, in this same room.
(The committee adjourned.)