Evidence of meeting #40 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was airlines.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Gradek  Faculty Lecturer and Academic Programs Coordinator, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, As an Individual
Gábor Lukács  President, Air Passenger Rights
Jacob Charbonneau  President and Chief Executive Officer, Late Flight Claim Canada Inc.
Sylvie De Bellefeuille  Lawyer, Budget and Legal Advisor, Option consommateurs
John Lawford  Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Gradek. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to cut you off there. I tried to give you a bit of leeway, but unfortunately we're out of time.

Next we have Mr. Chahal.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony today.

We talked a lot about the impact on air travellers and their experiences. In particular, a lot of these challenges have come up because of the challenges we've seen during the pandemic.

I'll start with you, Mr. Lawford.

What was the experience of Canadian air travellers compared to that of travellers in other countries? If we look at the U.S., as mentioned by my colleague, or Europe, what was the experience, if you could compare?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre

John Lawford

Each airline market recovered at a different rate. I think in the Canadian experience, there was a rush to try to service people a little too quickly, especially this last summer season.

The U.S. market recovered in a more staged manner. I'm not sure whether they had better labour management. Europe, I have to say, I haven't studied in as much detail as maybe Mr. Gradek or Mr. Charbonneau has, so perhaps they could speak to that.

Canada did have kind of a “turn it right off, turn it right back on full blast” approach. Especially after the airlines took the bailouts, it was surprising that there was so much labour shortage in Canada, and that was the source of most of our problems. As we heard in the last study, there were problems with other aspects of the government.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Was consumer protection in Canada adequate compared to that of the U.S. or Europe, in your opinion?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre

John Lawford

My bottom line here today is that passenger protection regulations are fine. We worked on them, and they have the substantive stuff we need for resolving most Canadian complaints. The trouble is that the system they've been shoved into is an old-fashioned tariff system that isn't built to process a lot of these claims. With the perfect storm, as Mr. Rogers noted, the backlog has become too big, so it looks bad.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Mr. Gradek, could you comment on the same question?

4:35 p.m.

Faculty Lecturer and Academic Programs Coordinator, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, As an Individual

John Gradek

Yes. I think what you saw happen in Canada was a situation where the airlines did not take the initiative to maintain staffing levels the way the European or American carriers had.

Air Canada dropped somewhere close to 20,000 employees and WestJet dropped 15,000 employees, and they were slow in bringing people back. Meanwhile, they decided to fly a fairly aggressive flight schedule. There really was a situation where the Canadian airlines took the initiative to fly and publish their flight schedules without having due regard to the resource levels required for them to support their flight schedules.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Do you believe the experience of air travellers was better in Europe or the U.S. compared to Canada? What are the strengths of consumer protection in comparison?

4:35 p.m.

Faculty Lecturer and Academic Programs Coordinator, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, As an Individual

John Gradek

I think the European carriers and European airports had some level of disruption. If you look at the Schiphol airport, London Heathrow and the Frankfurt Airport, they all had situations, albeit not as bad as we had it in Canada.

There were some disruptions due to staff shortages, and I think there was a much more conscientious view from the carriers about the need to have resources to start up again. That was not the case in Canada.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

You mentioned in your opening comments that the EU had a better system. If you could compare and contrast the strengths of their system against ours when it comes to protecting passengers or travellers, what recommendations would you bring forward for our study?

4:35 p.m.

Faculty Lecturer and Academic Programs Coordinator, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, As an Individual

John Gradek

I think a number of people this afternoon.... Gábor made the point about looking at trying to absorb as many of the EU regulation changes as we can into Canada.

The Europeans have said that situations associated with delays are payable by compensation, and that the only time you have an exemption is under extraordinary circumstances. In those extraordinary circumstances, no compensation is due. For staffing shortages and maintenance requirements on the airplanes, the airlines are basically liable for the payment of compensation in Europe. When you have a volcanic eruption, a political disruption, runway incursions or major events for which the airline has not had a chance to look at reasonable planning, then you don't have compensation. Otherwise, all is fair.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Chahal and Mr. Gradek.

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

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the complexity of the Canadian Transportation Agency's complaints system and the complexity of the air passenger protection regulations.

Finally, people say that all sorts of possible situations lead to all sorts of possible resolutions. So you have to rack your brains to figure out whether it's the carrier's responsibility or the other and under what circumstances, and all of that clogs up an administrative tribunal. We're talking about compensation amounts of $500, $1,000, or $2,000, and when you add in all the legal fees to go to court and the salaries of the officials to document and process the complaints, it ends up being very expensive.

During the pandemic, I had introduced Bill C‑249, which sought to simplify things by requiring people to be reimbursed when their flight is cancelled. It is not complicated. It's kind of like when I order a pizza: if I don't get it, I'll get my money back. It doesn't matter if there's a snowstorm, if the deliveryman hasn't put on his winter tires or if there's a lot of traffic: he still has to deliver my pizza, and he has to do it the same day, not three weeks later. Otherwise, he has to pay me back.

Wouldn't it be simpler to do it this way, rather than go through the trouble of inventing thousands of rules and hiring lots of civil servants only to have a system that doesn't work? Why not go back to my original proposal, Bill C‑249?

Ms. De Bellefeuille, what do you think?

4:40 p.m.

Lawyer, Budget and Legal Advisor, Option consommateurs

Sylvie De Bellefeuille

Indeed, what you raise is the very basis of contracts. The principle of a contract is that you pay a company to receive a service. If it is unable to provide that service, the rule normally is that the consumer is entitled to a refund. So why should it be different for an airline just because it's an airline? There's something in there that goes against the principle.

In the same vein, if you ordered a pepperoni pizza and they delivered a pizza that doesn't have pepperoni, again, there's a problem, because that's not what you ordered. If you bought a plane ticket for Saturday and are told you're not leaving until the following Monday, but it's okay because this new flight is within the 48‑hour time limit, that doesn't work either.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Lukács and Mr. Charbonneau, I'd like to hear your point of view. I know that I don't have much time left.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

You have less than 10 seconds left, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, So you're only going to be able to listen to Mr. Lukács.

Mr. Lukács, please go ahead.

4:40 p.m.

President, Air Passenger Rights

Dr. Gábor Lukács

Providing a refund in any event, regardless of the cause of the cancellation, of course makes perfect sense. That's what the law is in the European Union and the U.S.

However, if the airline cancels the flight for reasons that are not extraordinary, they also have to compensate passengers for their time and their inconvenience, because, after all, that is also a cost to the economy. When 200 people don't reach their destination on time, that has a productivity value that has to be paid for by the airline.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács.

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have two and a half minutes.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard in previous testimony about the challenge that's presented when a whole flight of people is inconvenienced by a delay or cancellation, yet only a small percentage of those passengers have the tenacity to go through a very bureaucratic and lengthy process to pursue compensation. Every single passenger on that flight had the same experience, yet only a tiny percentage are going to possibly get compensation. This seems like a situation that heavily favours the airline, because even if they have to pay out, it's only to a fraction of the passengers affected.

I understand that the legislation provides the CTA with the power to make determinations on a flight-by-flight basis, as opposed to a passenger-by-passenger basis.

Mr. Lukács, I wonder if you could talk about this power the CTA has and whether it uses it effectively.

4:40 p.m.

President, Air Passenger Rights

Dr. Gábor Lukács

Under section 67.4 of the Canada Transportation Act and subsection 113.1(3) of the air transportation regulations, the Canadian Transportation Agency can make determinations that are applicable to all passengers or some passengers on the same flight if they complain before the agency. I have not seen any decision where this actually has been done.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I'll also ask Mr. Charbonneau if he's heard about this provision being utilized by the CTA.

4:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Late Flight Claim Canada Inc.

Jacob Charbonneau

I don't recall ever having seen the agency use this provision.

On the other hand, there are three stages at the agency. The first two are facilitation and mediation. Most people are directed to the first stage. Neither of these first two stages leads to an official, executory, decision that could be applied to all the passengers.

This provision only applies to those who reach the third stage, the official one. Only a very small percentage of those who make a claim with the agency reach this stage.

That whole process doesn't work either.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Do I have a couple of seconds left, Mr. Chair?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Bachrach.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I'm a little confused, because the EU had regulations first. The EU's regulations protect passengers better by almost any metric or indicator you would go with. Why is Canada so poor at protecting consumers compared to other jurisdictions like the EU and the U.S.? Why didn't we simply copy the legislation that was proven to be effective?

Mr. Charbonneau, do you have thoughts on why this is the case?