:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 3, 2022, the committee is meeting to study the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
[English]
Colleagues, appearing before us today, from the Canadian Transportation Agency, we have Michelle Greenshields, director general, dispute resolution branch; and Tom Oommen, director general, analysis and outreach branch.
From the Department of Transport, joining us virtually, we have Craig Hutton, associate assistant deputy minister, policy; and Colin Stacey, director general, air policy.
In the second half of our meeting, from the National Airlines Council of Canada, we have Jeff Morrison, president and chief executive officer; and from WestJet Airlines, we have Andrew Gibbons, vice-president, external affairs.
I'd like to take this opportunity to inform members that all of today's video conference witness participants have completed the necessary audiovisual checks. Once again, I'll look over to my esteemed interpreters to get the thumbs up to make sure that everything is okay. Fantastic.
We will begin with opening remarks from the Department of Transport, for five minutes.
I turn the floor over to you.
:
Good afternoon.
Bonjour. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to speak with you today.
[Translation]
It is my pleasure to join you and the honourable members of this committee.
I welcome this opportunity to share how the Government of Canada has been working to strengthen Canada's air passenger rights regime.
I am pleased to be joined today by Colin Stacey, director general of Air Policy at Transport Canada.
[English]
Prior to the Transportation Modernization Act and subsequently the air passenger protection regulations—or APPR, as they are known—passenger rights were not widely understood nor consistently applied across air carriers in Canada, including the fact that rights were different for international and domestic flights.
The APPR fully came into force in December 2019, with the objective of creating a more predictable and balanced approach to ensure that passengers know their rights; air carriers understand their obligations; proper complaint resolution and enforcement mechanisms are provided; and operators don't face an undue burden or lose competitiveness in adhering to these rights, including in a way that could negatively affect ticket prices for consumers.
These regulations were developed based on best practices from the United States and the European Union. The regulations govern the treatment of passengers by air carriers, as well as clarifying minimum standards of treatment and compensation that must be provided to passengers based on the level of control an air carrier has over a flight disruption.
Separately, the mobility rights of persons with disabilities are protected under the accessible transportation for persons with disabilities regulations. These regulations came into force in June 2022.
With the APPR, Canada has a robust set of regulations to protect Canadians when they travel by air. In many instances, passengers are eligible for compensation. The Canadian approach goes above and beyond other jurisdictions in some areas. For example, the APPR provide for compensation for delays and cancellations within a carrier’s control, which does not exist in the United States. Also, carriers are required to re-book passengers on a competitor carrier in certain situations, which is not the case in either Europe or the U.S.
As with any new regulatory regime, we would expect it to be tested by practical experience. In the case of the APPR, this has happened in a way that's beyond what could have been imagined. Indeed, the regime has been tested by the worst crisis in the history of commercial aviation and the difficult pathway to recovery that's followed. The result, as you well know, is a significant number of passenger complaints.
It's important to recall that these complaints are occurring because the passenger rights regime provides Canadians and air carriers with a framework that outlines obligations to passengers. Complaints that go to the agency are the ones where there is doubt about the application of the regulations.
The typical first step is an attempt at resolution directly with the carrier, where a complaint can be resolved without any agency involvement. Where complaints are advanced to the agency, we understand that a large number of these are resolved by facilitation, which means that the agency is often able to provide a resolution for travellers.
In other instances, decisions are adjudicated, which can also provide relief to passengers as well as clarity around how similar situations would be treated in the future. Such possibilities for satisfying passenger complaints would have been much more limited with the system that existed prior to Canada’s air passenger rights regime.
The agency has processed over 25,000 passenger complaints by different dispute resolution methods since the APPR came into full effect in 2019, and additional temporary funds for one year were announced in budget 2022 to increase the agency's complaint processing capacity.
Recognizing that the agency plays an important role in supporting the efficient functioning of the national transportation system, the Government of Canada continues to work with the organization to address its financial requirements to ensure that it is resourced appropriately to carry out all of its mandated functions, including consumer protection for air travellers.
We are improving the APPRs based on experience. When a gap in the APPR was revealed at the onset of the pandemic—namely that carriers were not required to provide refunds for cancellations that were not within their control and where no alternative travel was possible due to the pandemic—the Government of Canada quickly acted to close this particular gap.
Based on direction from the Minister of Transport, the agency’s new regulations ensure that even when cancellations and lengthy delays occur that are outside the airline’s control, passengers can receive a refund if the airline cannot complete a passenger’s itinerary within 48 hours, regardless of the type of ticket that was purchased. These new regulations came into force in September and provide greater clarity around timing, cost coverage, method of payment and deadlines to refund travellers.
Furthermore, Transport Canada continues to work in close collaboration with the agency to examine further opportunities to improve the functioning of our air passenger rights regime to ensure that it continues to be world-leading and meet passenger needs, including those of passengers with disabilities, and that air carriers abide by the spirit of the regulations. This includes examining recent experience in the face of the challenges presented by the pandemic to consider whether additional changes to the regime are required.
[Translation]
Furthermore, Transport Canada continues to work in close collaboration with the agency to examine further opportunities to improve the functioning of Canada's air passenger rights regime to ensure that it continues to be world leading, meets passengers' needs, including passengers with—
:
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today.
As you noted, I am accompanied by my colleague Michelle Greenshields.
[English]
Chair, if it's okay with you, we'll share our five minutes of opening remarks.
[Translation]
First, as a regulator, the Canadian Transport Agency develops regulations in accordance with legislation, implements regulations, issues licences and determinations, and enforces regulations.
Second, as an administrative tribunal, the agency resolves complaints using informal dispute resolution, facilitation and mediation, as well as through a formal adjudication process, in which it has all the powers of a superior court.
The agency has a mandate for the federally regulated transportation system—air, rail and marine—as well as for protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities to an accessible transportation network.
A core component of our mandate is providing consumer protection for air passengers, most significantly through the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, or APPR.
In 2018, the Transportation Modernization Act amended the Canada Transportation Act and gave the agency the authority to make regulations defining airlines' minimum obligations toward passengers.
Before the development of the APPR, each airline set out its own terms and conditions of carriage in a legal document known as a tariff—which is in effect the contract between the passenger and the airlines. After the coming into force of the APPR, in addition to the terms and conditions set out in their tariff, each airline is required to follow the obligations as set out in the APPR. These regulations create more consistent passenger rights across airlines.
Developed following a comprehensive public consultation exercise, the APPR addresses fundamental entitlements of passengers including receiving clear communications, and being treated fairly in the case of delays, cancellations and denied boarding.
These minimum obligations differ, based on the extent to which the causes of a flight disruption are within an airline's control or not. Obviously for situations that an airline can control, airlines are held to a higher standard of treatment toward the passengers, for example, for flight disruptions that are wholly within airline control, airlines are required to provide compensation for inconvenience. Even when events occur that are outside of their control, airlines must still ensure that their passengers get to their destination as quickly as possible.
Whether an event is outside of an airline's control, within their control, or within the airlines' control but required for safety can sometimes be difficult to determine. It can be even more difficult for a passenger, as the information that would enable the passenger to determine how the flight disruption is categorized and what their entitlements are, is within the hands of the airlines.
:
As you're aware, in 2020, three months after the APPR came into force, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a collapse in global air travel. As the events of the pandemic unfolded, it became clear that there was a gap in Canada's air passenger protection framework relating to the situation where flights were cancelled or delayed for reasons outside of the airline's control and there was no possibility of a passenger completing their itinerary within a reasonable time. Because the law did not require airlines to include refund provisions in their tariffs for such situations, what a passenger was entitled to depended on the particular tariff of the airline.
Given the implications of this gap in the framework, on December 18, 2020, the issued a direction to the agency providing the authority to develop a regulation respecting the airline's obligations to a passenger in case of flight cancellation or lengthy delays due to situations outside their control that prevent them from ensuring that passengers complete their itinerary within a reasonable time frame.
The final regulations amending the APPR were published in part 2 of Canada Gazette on June 22, 2022, and came into force on September 8, 2022. The new regulations require airlines to provide a passenger affected by a cancellation or a lengthy delay due to a situation outside the airline's control with a confirmed reservation on the next available flight that's operated by them or a partner airline leaving within 48 hours of the departure time indicated on the passenger's original ticket.
If the airline cannot provide the confirmed reservation within a 48-hour period, it must provide the passenger with a choice, a refund or a re-booking. A refund must be provided within 30 days.
Following the coming into force of APPR, we saw a significant influx of complaints, with an incoming monthly complaint volume that was quadrupled. To put this in perspective, in 2018-19, we received about 7,600 complaints. During the year that APPR came into force, 2019-20, we received 19,000 complaints, even though the APPR was only fully enforced for three months prior to the onset of the pandemic.
More recently, as air travel volumes have rebounded and the air industry has grappled with the speed of recovery, we've witnessed a big jump in complaints, which have only recently started to slow down. While we had been receiving an average of 1,500 complaints per month in April, May and June of this year, complaint volumes jumped to more than 3,000 in July and 5,700 in August.
Despite processing more complaints than before, in 2021-22, we processed over 15,000 complaints, which is more than three times the number of complaints that we were processing annually before the APPR and the pandemic. We still had a significant number of complaints, and that has led to a backlog.
We're working on addressing the backlog by further increasing our complaint processing capacity through identifying and implementing procedural improvements, modernizing our processes and adding capacity where possible.
Finally, although today's study is focused on the APPR, I should mention that the agency has a key human rights mandate for accessibility of the federally regulated transportation system. I would note that, when we receive cases regarding accessibility, they are prioritized and, as a result, we have no backlog in this area.
Thank you, Chair. We'd be happy to respond to any questions.
:
Mr. Chair, there's a question about power imbalance.
In fact, the agency plays an important role in facilitating the interaction between the passenger and airline.
First of all, through our informal facilitation process, an agency facilitator sits down with the passenger and a representative of the airline, in order to air out the issues in dispute and try to come to a resolution. That includes the details of the events surrounding a flight disruption. In facilitation, it's the agency facilitator who asks for information from the airline, not the passenger. The vast majority of complaints are, in fact, dealt with through facilitation.
For cases that proceed to adjudication, the agency provides its services free of charge. No lawyer is required. The agency provides extensive guidance material to assist passengers in understanding the regulatory framework. It clearly explains to passengers what is required for each step in the adjudication process.
The main way by which the agency oversees compliance with the APPR is through the resolution of complaints made by passengers against airlines. This is because complaint resolution is helpful individually to the complaining passenger since it can result in the passenger obtaining a remedy from the airline. Also, the complaint process allows a panel of members to interpret the regulations.
The other way in which the agency oversees compliance with the APPR is through compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. To that end, the agency does have a small number of designated enforcement officers. Our team of enforcement officers has several roles.
First, they support complaint resolution by following up on agency decisions and orders pursuant to the resolution of complaints. They make sure that the airlines comply with the orders following a complaint decision. They also conduct targeted enforcement blitzes and issue notices of violation and administrative monetary penalties.
A concrete example, really quickly, of how this works together is a relatively small number of AMPs were issued for airlines not responding to passengers within 30 days of a request for compensation. You will see on our website that we have posted those notices of violations and the amounts of the administrative monetary penalties. However, while the enforcement officers were having those conversations with the airlines, that also resulted in the airlines, in many cases, changing their categorization of the flight disruption to “within control” and paying the passengers the compensation.
There is that dual role of investigating and issuing administrative monetary penalties and also having those discussions with the airlines to ensure, ultimately, the goals of compliance and changing behaviour.
We continue to receive a high volume of complaints, although the pace has reduced since the summer. For example, we received 5,800 complaints in the month of August in comparison to the period before the APPR came into force when we received 7,600 complaints for the entirety of the fiscal year 2018-19.
Our current backlog is 30,000 complaints. Currently, 80% of those cases have been received since April 1, 2022. We continue to work to address these cases with the resources that we have and to review our processes to optimize our processing capacity as we go forward.
We've already found ways to more quickly review cases informally and formally through the batching of cases, that is, finding cases that have a common flight and being able to handle them with a larger volume, streamlining our manual processes.
:
I heard the answer to my question: right now, you have 30,000 unresolved complaints.
You also mentioned that you have increased your capacity to deal with complaints. If I'm not mistaken, you said that you used to process between 5,000 and 6,000 complaints annually and that you are now processing 15,000. So, it will take about two years to process the entire backlog of 30,000 complaints. I imagine that you have plans to continue improving your processing speed so that you can handle more.
You also mentioned that a large number of complaints were resolved through facilitation and mediation, which was the primary method used.
I think you also group complaints, to deal with a number of them.
Once the complaints are considered closed, do you call the complainants back to find out if they were satisfied with the outcome? Do you have any statistics on complainant satisfaction?
:
I'll preface this by saying the thing that I always have to say: I can't speak for members of the agency who adjudicate and issue decisions on each case based on the evidence before them. However, I will say that there are at least two ways in which agency decisions made with respect to a single complaint can have an impact that goes beyond that single complaint.
The first way, which is particularly important for new regulations, is through the interpretation of regulations such as the APPR. When members of the agency interpret the facts of a case, that serves as a model for the cases that will follow.
Given the newness of the regulation, our emphasis has been on interpretation. It is true that sections 67.4 or 113.1 can be used to extend elements of a decision to other passengers on the same flight. However, there are a couple of points to note, Chair.
First, 97% of complaints that come to the agency are resolved through informal means. Most complaints don't actually make it to members to adjudicate and issue decisions. For those complaints that do get to adjudication, as I said, in a number of cases, we have already started notifying the parties to those cases that it is our intention to consider using section 67.4.
:
At this point we've made a number of improvements, as I mentioned before, related to our process. We have seen some positive outcomes as a result of the improvements we have made. Some of our improvements are related to processing efficiency where we found deficiencies in the intake of information. We also have some other processing improvements, such as the batching we mentioned, which allows us to be able to more effectively handle the complaint volumes.
We also have improvements in adjudication where we've come forward with shortened decisions. We've reduced the time to issue an adjudication decision from 144 days to 40 days in total, so we do have some progress.
We also have some usability efficiencies going forward. We are trying to be increasingly transparent on our case status updates. We have put information online to help passengers understand where they are in our process in terms of the backlog in total and also to understand our process and where they're at, to help them navigate.
We're also working at posting soon the number of complaints or the volume of complaints per 100 flights for each airline to provide further information on the performance of the air industry.
We've undertaken and we've kicked off a more detailed review of our processes. This is going to be looking at not only how to improve our processes, but also the opportunities that elements like automation could provide us—particularly in the early parts of our process—so that we could, for example, automate some of the review of complaints to be able to find further efficiencies and allocate our resources towards the more complex part of our processes.
Because the volumes have increased so substantially, we need to really move to an operational organization. One that used to resolve 1,000 complaints is now resolving 30,000 complaints, so we do require a reset to do that.
[English]
It is my pleasure to be here with you this afternoon to outline WestJet's views on the air passenger protection regulations, provide our policy recommendations for the work before you and take your questions and feedback. We welcome this discussion.
Our relationship with our valued guests is embedded in the fabric of our company and our world-famous employees.
Before I comment on government regulations, I want to express on behalf of our organization our sincere appreciation and gratitude for our employees. I am sure this is shared by members of Parliament.
They are the people who brought Canadians home in the early stages of the pandemic and who rescue Canadians from hurricanes and storms both here in Canada and from afar. They have been on the front lines of COVID, implementing government measures with absolute professionalism. They have persevered through various policies that saw many of them lose their jobs forever or for a short period of time. Simply put, they are the best.
No one in Canada hates to see a guest's travel delayed or cancelled more than an airline employee. Despite having the best employees possible, modern aircraft and an unwavering commitment, things can and do go wrong. We accept that we are accountable to Parliament and the public, and that is why we are here today. Where we have failed our guests, we accept responsibility, apologize in earnest and turn over every stone to improve ourselves.
To our guests whose travel has been negatively impacted by any group that provides a service to the traveller, we also apologize. Most important, we want you to know that we are working to make sure the travel system is improved so that delays and cancellations are minimized and every single service provided as part of your travel journey is accountable, just like we are.
For the path forward, the WestJet group has four recommendations for the committee to consider.
One, we believe the government of Canada should prioritize a shared accountability framework for the air traveller. This regime should expand those accountable under regulations to not just airlines.
Two, the Government of Canada should end what is called the “small carrier” provision, which treats travellers unequally on the same routing and within the aviation system: A traveller is a traveller is a traveller. We believe this confusing and inconsistent policy should evolve.
Three, we believe that parliamentarians should resist the urge for major reforms to the APPR or increased pressures on airlines during a fragile recovery. As we just heard from Transport Canada and the CTA, it was in December 2019 that the regulations came into place, and we have yet to see a period of stability to properly assess the APPR outside of COVID chaos and operational chaos. We recommend that our policy energy be focused on improving the system.
Four, safety is sacred and must remain so in regulations and in the public domain. This was an original principle of the APPR and should firmly remain so.
On shared accountability, aviation is a critical and complex system. There are many factors that play into any disruption or incident. As Minister rightly noted several times this spring and summer, there is no one group to blame for service issues, and we agree.
Unfortunately, under the APPR, there is only one group that has regulations and compensation: the airline. It is important in order for passengers' rights to be protected that every single stakeholder in the sector has established service levels that they are accountable for. We therefore call on the committee and the government to establish service level standards, communications protocols and a reimbursement regime for all groups that provide a service that can result in a delay or cancellation.
This will likely require additional powers for the regulator to make determinations that will impact the CBSA, Nav Canada, airport authorities, and CBSA and other partners in the supply chain.
This is both the greatest lesson of the problems of the spring and summer, but also the greatest path to a shared objective, which is to minimize complaints.
On the small carrier provision, for a passenger rights program to be beneficial, it needs to treat all partners and passengers equally. Similarly, to this end, there should no longer be a distinction between large and small carriers.
To a passenger, a flight on WestJet is no different than on other carriers. A flight from Calgary to Toronto is the same. It's the same aircraft serving the same destinations, but their rights are different. They are different both with respect to compensation tables and also on re-booking obligations. This confusing regulation should be eliminated, and we recommend the committee enclose that in their recommendations.
There's been a lot of discussion on safety at these hearings and in the media. Here, I would request the committee take testimony from the member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, who authored the APPR as transport minister. It was very clear, at the time, that, for him and Transport Canada, the APPR was not intended to capture safety delays and cancellations. It was clearly intended to address commercial decisions made by airlines. Our view is that safety should always remain sacred and ring-fenced from additional penalties.
Finally, Mr. Chair, with respect to new policies, we need to remember that Canada is a very different market from the U.S.A. and Europe. There are many comparisons to existing passenger rights regimes. However, we have a vastly different climate, geography and population base. For example, there are 20 snowfall days in Europe per year, at their highest, and that's in very few locations. Canada has between 55 and 100 per year, which makes for an incredibly challenging operational environment. Also, our major populations are far away and more spread out.
We believe that, in the context of a fragile recovery, these recommendations are both reasonable and responsible. They represent the best path towards our shared objective, which is fewer complaints and a more resilient aviation system.
I am happy to take questions and look forward to the discussion.
Thank you.
I am the president of the National Airlines Council of Canada. Unfortunately, my colleague Suzanne Acton-Gervais is unable to join us today. For those of you who don't know, NACC represents Canada’s largest passenger airlines, including Air Canada, Air Transat, Jazz Aviation and WestJet.
Second only to safety, the most important component of world-class travel is a great experience for passengers. That said, sometimes circumstances can cause trip disruptions. There’s no question that there are several factors that can disrupt the passenger journey, such as inclement weather, mechanical issues with the aircraft, or unseen operating crew shortages. Disruptive factors were amplified this past year as air travel emerged from the pandemic.
This has raised questions about the APPR. In order to inform this committee’s review of the regulations, let me share some observations.
First, airlines are adhering to APPR regulations. In cases of disruption, flights are being refunded or re-booked, and hotel, food vouchers and compensation are being provided, where required. In fact, the CTA recently conducted a verification of airline processes in controlling major disruptions. It found that no systemic issues of concern were identified, which was the same conclusion in a similar verification review, back in 2020.
By the way, this is despite the fact that the APPR was not designed with a pandemic in mind. The pandemic was disastrous for air travel, globally. Every organization and agency in the industry, in Canada and around the world, faced challenges that continued into this summer.
Still, passengers, of course, have the right to appeal to the CTA when they feel a response to a disruption is unfair. Although it is true there is currently a backlog of complaints due to the unique circumstances of this summer—you just heard about them, in the first panel—there are new regulations and greater promotion, as well. As you heard from the CTA, the fact is that over 97% of complaints to the CTA are resolved amicably between the passenger and airline.
Another key point is that delays or disruptions in air travel often arise because of the interconnected nature of operations among all players in the aviation ecosystem. Airlines don't operate in isolation. They are the customers of airports and air navigation service providers, and they rely on numerous organizations and agencies for baggage handling, security screening, border agents, air traffic control, and so forth.
Yet, as my colleague Mr. Gibbons said, under the APPR, there is no accountability or service standards in place for any of those other organizations. For example, if an airline has to delay and leave a passenger sitting in a terminal for three hours, it owes you $400, but if a Canada customs or NavCan problem forces you to sit on an aircraft for four hours, they owe you nothing.
[Translation]
The best way to improve the APPR regime is to minimize the need for its use in the first place, and so our key recommendation is for the introduction of accountable service standards for all organizations and agencies involved in the air travel ecosystem.
Some commentators have charged that safety is being used as an excuse to justify disruptions. They suggest airlines cancel flights citing safety to avoid penalties. This claim is false and irresponsible.
[English]
Schedule disruptions are costly, and they impact everyone. They throw off, of course, passenger travel plans, but they reverberate through an entire day's schedule, through employee work schedules and airport operations. Cancelling or delaying a flight, except for safety, is always a carrier's last option, but safety is non-negotiable. In fact, as the CTA recently commented, “The Agency agrees...that a carrier should not be penalized for it, or its crew, making a safety call within their discretion regarding the safe operation of an aircraft.”
To conclude, Mr. Chair, it is reasonable, of course, that there be accountability for delays and disruption to passenger travel. Canada's airlines accept this through their own customer service standards and the APPR, but in order to be effective, the APPR need to create accountability for all players in the air travel ecosystem. We say that with an eye towards minimizing flight disruptions and ultimately to enhance air travel and the air travel experience for all passengers, which I'm sure is something that we all agree is our common objective.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Yes. I have two very quick points.
The first is on your point about safety. To be clear, safety, as you can imagine, is non-negotiable for airlines. That is an absolute line that will not be crossed in any way, shape or form. Of course, safety is, in part, regulatory. There are dozens and dozens of safety regulations and they are, in part, the call of pilots, which is how it should be, given certain circumstances.
As I've said in my remarks, to suggest that somehow safety is being used as an excuse to avoid...or as a cause for disruption, it is not an excuse. It's a legitimate regulatory function that airlines must pursue.
The second very quick point is that on the case of staff or pilots who call in sick, for example, contingency planning is something that airlines do on a daily basis. It's a very sophisticated function of what they have to do if crews or pilots call in sick or have some issue. However, as Mr. Gibbons said, it's not always possible, especially when we had a COVID period when pilots were sick. I think we can all agree we would not have wanted them going into work.
If you are in a small remote area, for example, getting a replacement crew can be difficult. There are certain logistical challenges. Some are associated with geography.
Again, safety is a non-negotiable function for airlines.
:
That's a great question.
First of all, for our guests, we've done our very best helping your constituents and other constituents with these issues. We had a major challenge with our contact centre some time ago. We were very transparent and public that our service at our contact centre did not meet the expectations that Canadians have of our company. We weren't afraid to say that. The good news is that we made that better, but we know how difficult it was for guests for a certain amount of time to reach us. It was unacceptable.
With respect to who verifies it, that's a great question. The CTA investigated a series of flights. I believe it was 560 flights. They found not one instance of an airline deliberately miscoding a flight. Of course, human error can occur, but I would encourage you to look at those investigation reports.
This goes to the questions that Dr. Lewis had earlier. There was not one instance of a deliberate miscode of a flight. That is how it's verified. There is a process. I can tell you the CTA is not shy about seeking information about why we coded something this way or that way, and what the basis for it was.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll begin with Mr. Gibbons.
I really liked a point you made earlier. You said that there was an audit by the Canadian Transportation Agency to determine if there was proper categorization when flights were cancelled or delayed, for example. It appears that there was no miscategorization of any of the 500 flights that were audited. So generally speaking, there seems to be a good categorization when flights are affected by cancellation, change or delay. Perhaps I'll ask Mr. Morrison about this later.
Furthermore, it was mentioned earlier that it is estimated that only one passenger out of 5,000 will file a complaint and take action with the CTA.
Wouldn't it make sense that if compensation is offered to a passenger on a flight as a result of a particular situation, such as misclassification or misinterpretation, that this compensation be extended to all passengers on the flight, systematically?
:
Gentlemen, I appreciate your answers. In fact, there is one aspect of your opening remarks that we particularly agree on, namely the sharing of responsibility when a flight is cancelled or when there are problems related to government services and established standards.
However, we were told that, from the point of view of the consumer or user, there is often only one interface, and that is the airline they bought their ticket from. They'll turn to the airline if there's a problem. It would be complicated for the consumer to determine whether it's the government's fault, the airline's fault, or whoever. We were told that the interface a person should generally use is the airlines. It should be up to the airline to turn to the government, when the government is to blame, to offer compensation afterwards.
Wouldn't it be simpler to work this way?
As you mentioned, the rules are complex. We've heard from the Canadian Transportation Agency that the cases are complex, that the rules are complex, and we've heard the same thing from the Consumer Protection Agency. Everyone agrees that the rules are very complex.
Wouldn't it be better to simplify the rules for the consumer, who has trouble navigating them? So, if there were grounds for compensation, we would stop looking at who is at fault, the airlines would always offer compensation to the consumer, and then they would apply to the government for compensation when necessary.
:
Thank you for the question. It's a good question and one we've thought about.
When the minister of the day first introduced APPR, he made very clear that the framework was meant to be very fair and balanced. There is a certain balance required. In Canada, unlike the EU of course, we have a very unique Canadian institution, the CTA, that adjudicates complaints.
There are also, as Mr. Gibbons mentioned in his opening statement, some very, very different geographical population differences between Canada and the EU. Winnipeg gets a lot more snow days than London or Paris does, for example. Being able to fly an alternate pilot from London to Paris is much simpler than it is from, say, Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Vancouver. There are some very different circumstances between the EU and Canadian regulations and environments, on which the two aren't necessarily aligned.
Thank you to both the witnesses this afternoon.
It's interesting testimony.
First and foremost, Mr. Gibbons, I just want to say thank you for celebrating your labour force—your team. To me, it is pretty awesome that you recognize that they are first and foremost. I'm quite sure it's not just WestJet—it could be any one of our airlines. Congratulations on that front.
To that extent, sir, what specifically is WestJet doing to support them?
To take it a step further, what more could the government be doing to help support WestJet to get more labour into the force?
:
Thank you very much for the question.
Thank you for complimenting WestJetters. They are great.
In terms of what the government can do, I think that was part of the testimony last time I was here, which mainly focused on a stable operating environment. That exists in a couple of different ways.
Definitely there's a COVID border travel guidance discussion to have—and credit to the . Last week he did ask for feedback in this regard in terms of what lessons we can learn from COVID. We do need to thank him for making that an issue of the summit. He could have chosen not to do that, but he didn't and good feedback was received, I hope.
We need a stable operating environment, so that people want to work in our sector, want to come to work for our company, want to serve Canadians and are not worried about up and down regulations or other issues. I think that's going to go a long way to labour stability.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
It's very nice to see you again, Mr. Morrison. We crossed paths at last week's air sector recovery summit. One of the subjects we discussed was precisely APPR, so it's really nice to see you here again.
I wanted to go further into the shared accountability, Mr. Gibbons. I just wanted to say and point out for the record that CBSA and CATSA employees can and do receive complaints when there are airport problems. They may not be directly in the APPR the way that airlines are, but they do receive complaints in that regard.
Also, in the same vein, for CATSA and CBSA, if they're going to also be a part of maybe compensating passengers, isn't that like the federal government using money to pay passengers as well? What do I mean by that? I'm going to read my question because I want to make sure I get this right.
Presumably, if CATSA and CBSA were subject to the APPR, would they be required to pay travellers compensation if they play a part in poor service at airports? These are federally funded entities, so the federal government would essentially be fining itself. Does that make sense?
:
I think what we're trying to achieve is more transparency for everyone who delivers a service that can result in a delay and cancellation.
While we were very committed to not playing the blame game with you and the during our crisis, we can observe that there were some Friday nights at Toronto Pearson airport where 700 guests missed their connections for one reason, and we can identify what that reason was: That was a customs hall that was overwhelmed, for whatever reason. It had nothing to do with the people who run our airplanes.
These flights that were arriving at the gate were often held for two hours—something we're fined for—so we're asking very reasonably, whether it's service level standards or compensation, what is the best mechanism for the Government of Canada to ensure Canadians understand and appreciate what the roles and responsibilities of those different actors are?
With respect to your question around compensation, the question we have for the government is this: Should we be the insurance provider for all service providers in the entire sector simply because we have a contract with the guest? Is that right and reasonable and what are the negative impacts of that?
Our recommendation to the committee is to focus on fixing the actual system so that there are no complaints, we don't have to retrieve any money from anyone else who makes an error and we have a well-functioning system.
:
Yes. By the way, it was very nice to have met you as well.
Our recommendations regarding the shared accountability model are not meant to be punitive. I think we would still need to have conversation, consultation and engagement with all of the players, first of all to define what that framework would look like and, second, to define how those metrics and how those sorts of accountability standards could be enforced. We're not necessarily suggesting that there be a financial penalty in that regard, but that's part of the conversation that we would need to have.
Frankly, I would argue that if the federal government would be looking to improve the travel system, there are many ways in which they could do that, including reinvesting in Canada's airports, but really, the purpose for those recommendations is frankly to improve the overall travel experience so that folks, passengers, don't have to use APPR in the first place. That is by far the best way in which we could improve the regime.
I have a question for Mr. Morrison, although it could also be for Mr. Gibbons.
A question was raised earlier today as to whether we should be looking at the regulations that exist in the United States and Europe with respect to passenger protection and compensation, which are more stringent in several respects. We also discussed this with other witnesses at the previous meeting. I understand that your answer at this point is no.
I have to wonder what the basis is for saying no to that question because, generally speaking, whether it's aviation, accounting or any other field, having relatively similar standards from one place to another makes it easier to do business. Canada's major trading partners are the United States and Europe. So I'm wondering why we wouldn't seek to have standards similar to theirs, both in terms of operations and services, and in terms of compensation for passengers, given that consumers arriving from there should expect the same kind of support they have at home.