Transport Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Is that a future potential matter?

[Karen Hogan]

There's so much to do in the area of accessibility. We'll take it under advisement, absolutely, but this was our first chance looking at it, since the accessibility act was so new. It's definitely on the horizon to revisit at some point.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe I'll go back to the CTA and ask about the fines levied. Do you feel they're appropriate to change behaviour? If they're not working, is there an escalation? How does this work?

[France Pégeot]

We do believe that to improve accessibility, we need to use various tools. I've mentioned the information and training available on our website, etc. For sure, enforcement is a key aspect of it.

As with other regulatory agencies, enforcement is used to achieve compliance. It is not a punitive measure. That being said, over the last year we've increased our enforcement capacity. We've increased, more than tripled, the number of inspections we've done. When we look at the administrative monetary penalty, we've increased it so far by 270%.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Can I ask what the maximum fine levied thus far has been for an accessibility issue? You've heard the stories of anguish. This is not insignificant.

[France Pégeot]

Yes. The maximum fine we've given so far is around $100,000. The way it works is that there is always an increment. If the same type of violation were to happen, then we would of course give an increased fine.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

How many of those have been levied?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Pégeot.

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Ms. Koutrakis, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses who are here today. We've heard some very important testimony. I'm very encouraged to hear that you find the work we're doing here at this committee to be very helpful to you. This is indeed a very important study, so thank you for taking the time to be here with us today. To follow along from what my good colleague Mr. Bachrach said earlier, we may not be the number one entertainment, but I'm sure the folks here today do follow us very carefully and diligently.

At a previous meeting, WestJet was here. They assured us that they have training programs in place. Documentation shows us that they do have training, but the training they spoke of happens once every three years.

I'd like to start my questions with the Auditor General and the team from her office.

Do you think once every three years to receive training is adequate? If not, what should it be?

[Karen Hogan]

The current regulation does require training to happen within 60 days of someone beginning their role, and then a refresh every three years. The answer, honestly, on how often it should happen is that it depends. Because there's such constant turnover, and you would hope there are folks moving to different roles and different positions, there is likely a need for training on a much more regular basis than just once every three years. I worry that when there's a requirement like that, it's sometimes treated as “we've done it” instead of really caring about what it is.

I think the regulations right now are such, but I would hope that folks would see the need to do it in a more focused way. With new equipment or specialized equipment, or as new fleets are introduced and new methods are brought about, those refreshers are likely needed more regularly.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Ms. Cadieux, would you like to offer some insight as someone who has faced those challenges? Just by the examples you shared with us, it clearly demonstrates, to me, anyway, that there is a lack of training. What types of training should be in place throughout the entire ecosystem, and who should be responsible for what?

[Stephanie Cadieux]

It is complex and the system is complex. It's not just the airlines, but it's the ground crews, the airports and how all of those interact. An airline might have their own crews in one location but not in another, and that certainly is the case internationally. When we fly outside the country, into Europe, for example, or into the U.S., the crews there are not staff of the airline, so while they can influence training and can demand a certain response, there is a complexity. I think it's important to recognize that.

With that said, it doesn't excuse it, and we need to find better solutions. Training and retraining are important, but so are the consequences when things go wrong. If there are no consequences to problems, then that allows them to repeat. I think that's a really important thing to remember.

And it's not just about how we handle mobility aids—that's one thing—but how do we ensure customer service for somebody who is blind, to give them the layout of the lavatory so they don't have to pat around the whole area to find the flush button? These things are also important, and how do you handle all of that in the training? Role-specific training is important.

I can't say enough about the need for training, but ultimately it comes down to that human element, and that customer service mentality. Do we want to be the best or not? That will vary among airlines, airports, and countries.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

In all of my professional career in finance before finding this new role in my life, I was always involved in an industry that aimed to deliver superior client service, so when I hear you comment about receiving the client service and the standard not being there, I have to tell you that I almost feel like rolling up my sleeves and saying, “Okay, how can we do better? What can I do as a member of Parliament to make sure that happens, because that's incredibly important.”

It adds to providing end-to-end service, which leads into my question. What types of things are we putting in place to make sure that end-to-end service and the overall client experience is there, not for the average passenger, but for those with disabilities, who do need that extra help? What would you say the CTA could do to make sure that is applied throughout the system?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have time for a 15-second response, please.

[France Pégeot]

The current regulation prescribes for end-to-end service, and we certainly respond to various complaints with respect to that, but we also have our inspectors who monitor the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pégeot.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to Ms. Pégeot, from the Canadian Transportation Agency, about the “one person, one fare” principle for people with disabilities. Since the previous round of questions, I've been informed that, in the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, Article 6, point 1.a. clearly states that aeronautical authorities may intervene for the “prevention of unreasonably discriminatory pricing or practices.”

In my opinion, when you decide to charge someone two plane tickets because they're a bit heavier than someone of average weight, or because they have reduced mobility, or because they need someone to accompany them, that seems pretty discriminatory to me. To my mind, it's clearly a question of political will. This agreement clearly states that the government could act.

I'll turn to another subject straightaway, as I don't have much speaking time.

I'm going to talk about the famous Air Passenger Protection Regulations, which were due for reform. On April 20, the Minister of Transport at the time, Mr. Omar Alghabra, announced that there would be major changes to Bill C‑47, which received royal assent on June 22.

These changes were to include, for example, reversing the burden of proof, requiring airlines to process complaints within 30 days, and empowering the Transportation Agency to charge airlines for complaints. This would include compensation for all flight disruptions.

The government also mentioned in that same release in April that the new complaints resolution process would be implemented on September 30, 2023. We are now approaching March 2024. That's a long time. What's going on? Why is it not in place yet?

[France Pégeot]

The law that was passed by Parliament is certainly a step forward in the field of consumer protection. Already, the burden of proof has been reversed, and airlines must respond within 30 days. So these two measures are already in place.

We carried out a preliminary consultation on the draft regulations last summer. We are confident that we will be able to publish the proposed regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette within the next few months.

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

We often hear about the number of complaints that are filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency and the processing times. The latest data available to us indicates that there are approximately 61,000 unprocessed files.

Where are we currently in terms of the number of unprocessed files and processing times?

[France Pégeot]

We now have around 65,000 unprocessed files, and the processing time is around 18 months. It's certainly a situation we're working on. In fact, we've hired a lot of people. Last year alone, we received 40,000 complaints. This year, it's likely to be the same number. This year, in January alone, we received 4,000 complaints.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I'd like to ask a question about this, Ms. Pégeot. You received 40,000 complaints compared to how many passengers last year?

[France Pégeot]

Well, that's a good question…

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could you provide this information in writing to our committee?

[France Pégeot]

I can send it to you, of course. I can also tell you about how the situation has evolved. About five or six years ago, we were getting 7,000 to 8,000 complaints a year. There's really been an explosion in complaints over the last two years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pégeot.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes, please.