Transport Committee on Aug. 19th, 2022

[Neil Parry]

I am aware of this, and that doesn't contradict what I just said. What I said was, if they are sick or away that week, they qualify for the other weeks in which they show up for their scheduled shift, so they continue to be eligible. They are not disqualified from the program.

I am aware of the documents. I've seen all of the memos issued by our contractors. Some of them have been amended since. I believe the copy that you had at our last meeting.... There are further clarifications within those when those memos talk about what's eligible.

This is a program that was rolled out quickly. We worked with our contractors. There were a number of questions that they received from their union representatives. We went back with them to clarify that we don't want to see people disqualified. We want to ensure that they can take their vacation and, if they are sick, we want them to stay well, but we also want them to continue to be eligible for those weeks and to show up for their shift when they're not sick or on vacation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To be clear, Mr. Parry, if I am working for a CATSA contractor and I wake up with a sore throat and stay home to protect my co-workers and the travelling public, do I still qualify for the $200-a-week bonus for that week in which I stayed home sick for one day?

[Neil Parry]

For that week you do not, but you qualify for your paid sick leave. Your normal benefits and compensation apply, but the incentive program, which is 12 separate increments, is available for whichever increments those officers can avail themselves of.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Parry, can you not see how this puts workers in a very difficult situation? Essentially, you wake up with a sore throat and you're making that decision about whether to go into work and there's $200 on the line. Is this not an incentive to go to work sick?

[Neil Parry]

We don't see it as an incentive to go to work sick, because screening officers, without this incentive, are entitled to all of their base compensation, which includes their hourly wage, their health and dental benefits, paid sick leave, paid holidays. This is supernumerary to that compensation, so they're not out-of-pocket in any capacity.

The incentive program is an additional bonus structure that they can avail themselves of when it's the best opportunity for them.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think you know where I'm going with this. They would get $200 if they went in sick with a sore throat. They lose the $200 bonus if they stay home.

Have the unions conveyed concern about this program directly to CATSA?

[Neil Parry]

I'd have to verify that. Generally, the unions convey their concerns directly to their employers.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Am I clear to understand, then, that CATSA has no issues with the way this program is currently being rolled out?

[Neil Parry]

I would say that the program is showing that it is working, that it is effective, and that our absenteeism throughout the country has been down over the summer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Parry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Next we have Ms. Lantsman.

Ms. Lantsman, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks very much.

Thanks for coming.

I'm going to go back to ArriveCAN. Given the experience and the major criticism by almost every stakeholder across the industry, from travel to tourism to those concerned with privacy, I'd like to know if the department has spoken to anyone outside of itself who supports it. Can you name anyone you've consulted with regarding ArriveCAN?

[Michael Keenan]

Mr. Chair, I don't know which department the honourable member is referring to, but I could offer one comment on this, and perhaps my colleagues at CBSA would like to comment.

It's an important point of context that ArriveCAN operates at the land border and the air border. Here we're talking about air congestion. One of the very challenging situations we had in air congestion was getting people fast enough through the customs hall at Pearson. As the minister has indicated, earlier in this ramp-up of travel we saw some significant incidents of planes being held at the gate and the metering of passengers into the customs hall.

We have an airport operations recovery group with the airports and airlines—all the partners, including Transport, CBSA, PHAC, CATSA—and a lot of work was done to try to work through how to fix that. A number of changes were made that have proven to be very successful because the number of holds for international arrivals has dropped 90%. It was like 300 per week in May, when we were at about 65,000 people arriving a day. It's now down to like 40 a week, even though we have 90,000 people arriving per day.

A number of changes were made in the management of the customs hall. Colleagues in CBSA—

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sorry, I had a question. I'm going to pipe in here because I have only a couple of minutes.

I'm going to ask it in a different way.

Everybody here on this call has implied that the app is only necessary due to the mandates. If the government removes the mandates one day, if it decides to do that, would the department's view be that there is no need for ArriveCAN?

[Michael Keenan]

To answer the first question, in that work, we worked with all of the partners and managed to get the ArriveCAN completion rate up much higher for international arriving passengers. That was the work with the entire industry. There was a lot of engagement with the industry on this. They worked with us. That was one of the key success factors in declogging the customs hall. There has been extensive discussion with our operating partners on ArriveCAN. The fact that a lot fewer people are arriving at the customs hall with it incomplete has been a key success factor in getting people through.

On your second question, I think I would.... It's difficult to speculate on the second question simply because, given the policy the government has today in terms of the information that is being required from passengers to ensure safe international travel, the completion of ArriveCAN is a major force in the gains in efficiency in the airport we're seeing now.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'm going to go back to where you said there was a 99% compliance rate with ArriveCAN; that's what we heard, or 99%-plus compliance with ArriveCAN. I'm going to turn your attention to somebody named Mark Webber. He's the president of the Customs and Immigration Union representing border agents. He says it's that high because of the assistance in filling out ArriveCAN. He says the number is more like 70%.

So which number is true? In terms of looking at that 99%, are you being misled on the compliance rate? There's a very big difference between those who come ready with it done and CBSA agents being taken away from their work to help people do it, because that's what we're hearing.

[Michael Keenan]

I would say one thing on this—and then quickly turn it over to Mr. Vinette—and agree on the premise of your question. In fact, a lot of work was done in the context of international arrivals in air to get passengers to complete ArriveCAN before they went to the customs hall. If they went into the customs hall without ArriveCAN done, it clogged up an extremely busy part of Pearson airport. Getting that rate of completion up before they go in the hall is one of the key reasons that we've been able to make such progress in the flow of international arrivals at Pearson.

In terms of the statistics, I would turn it over to my colleague at CBSA to comment further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, we don't have time.

I'm sorry, Mr. Vinette.

We will now go to Mr. McDonald.

Mr. McDonald, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say a big thank you to my colleague, the MP for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, for asking me to fill in for him at this committee meeting today.

We've heard a lot today about one topic in particular, and that's the airline passenger bill of rights. That was pushed by a good friend of mine, a man by the name of Woodrow French, who lives not too far from my home. We live in the same town. He was at it for years. Finally a government listened, and that government was the Liberal government. I think it was Minister Garneau at the time.

To the officials, does the airline passenger bill of rights do what it was intended to do when it comes to protecting airline passengers? Should it be tweaked if it's not doing its intended end-of-the-day product, protection for anyone using our airlines, whether domestically or commercially?

[Michael Keenan]

Mr. Chair, I think the answer to the question is that, as the member indicated, the airline passenger protection, the airline passenger rights regime that Minister Garneau brought in several years ago, came in just before the pandemic. It has made a significant difference in terms of how passengers are treated, but it also is the first time we've had a comprehensive set of passenger rights in Canada.

In the context of COVID, we've discovered that it actually does need changes. In fact, one area where it needed an adjustment is that the system hadn't contemplated a massive disruption of air travel on the scale of what we saw with COVID in March 2020. That's the reason the Minister of Transport brought forth regulations to strengthen the requirements for refunds in situations where there is major disruption and an airline is incapable of completing a journey. That enhancement in passenger rights is actually coming into force on September 8.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you for that.

Next, we hear a lot about mandates, whether it's vaccination mandates or masking mandates or anything else, from the Conservative side, who never, ever supported the introduction of any mandates whatsoever, whether it be masking or vaccination or travel restrictions. Do you believe that the mandates were necessary programs to bring in when COVID first struck our area here in Canada and any of the provinces? Do you think that because of the mandates we've managed to save thousands and thousands of lives? There are people still dying from COVID, but of course, as we know, when it first came to our country and exploded in many provinces, many people did die from the disease—probably people who shouldn't have died or wouldn't have died, only for COVID, which was the main contributor to it.

Do you think we should still pay attention to the public health officials who are recommending that we do this or we do that, or that it's time to drop this or drop that—in essence, I guess, at the end of the day, protecting Canadians' lives, whether they're coming from abroad, or travelling from province to province, or using any entity for travel, whether it be ferries, trains or planes?

[Michael Keenan]

In terms of the overall impact of mandates on the protection of the population, I would have to defer to colleagues with PHAC on that. Before I do that, I would simply say that, at Transport Canada, we have been working with our partners to put in place extensive restrictions on travel as well as rules for safe travel when travel returns, everything from closing the border, shutting down flights and shutting down cruise ships to restarting all of these industries but ensuring that it's done with the right measures to protect travellers, whether it is distancing, mask mandates or vaccine mandates. Those have evolved significantly over the last two and a half years. We put in place dozens and dozens of orders and adjusted them dozens of times based on public health conditions and the latest public health science and research.

It is our assessment that they have made a significant difference by enabling people, Canadians and foreigners, to travel and do so safely despite the threat of COVID.

In terms of the broader question about the impact of mandates on protecting the population, I would have to turn to a colleague from the Public Health Agency of Canada.

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

With respect to the measures that have been put in place as a result of COVID-19, we've undertaken a multipronged or multi-layered approach. With respect to a mandate based on vaccination, obviously a vaccination mandate would mitigate the importation of COVID-19 as well as decrease the potential for infection and severity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 10 seconds, please, Ms. Lutfallah.

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

Along with the vaccine mandate, Canada has taken that multi-layered approach and implemented a number of other mechanisms to reduce the risk to Canadians' health and to increase their health security. That included testing as well as quarantine, isolation and masking. When you take all those measures together, as Dr. Tam has said on previous occasions, it has gone far in protecting the health of our population.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.