Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, my colleague Mr. Bachrach touched on the issue of complaints that are abandoned by complainants during the process.

Do you have any idea of the proportion or number of complaints that are withdrawn because consumers give up during the process?

[Tom Oommen]

Chair, what we track are the number of complaints that we have at each stage of the process. As I mentioned, 97% of the complaints that come to us are dealt with in facilitation that results in a resolution or a termination of the case in agreement with the airline and the passenger.

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

What you're telling me is that 97% of complaints are handled through facilitation. That means that no more than 3% of complaints would be dropped during the process.

If I understand correctly, that 3% would also include complaints that will be handled by the court system, for instance. Is that right?

[Tom Oommen]

Chair, I believe the answer to that question is yes. Of all the complaints, 97% are dealt with at facilitation, and then the rest go further in the process. That 97%, I should emphasize, doesn't always mean that all of the parties are happy with what happens in the facilitation stage, but there is an understanding that the solution reached in facilitation is the correct one.

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

According to what consumer associations have told us, very often people on airplanes don't even know that they have rights, even though airlines have a duty to inform consumers of their rights and to ensure that they use the remedies available to them.

What is the agency doing to ensure that consumers know they have rights? Do you monitor the airlines to make sure they're providing the information? How do you do that?

[Tom Oommen]

In fact, an important part of our implementation of the APPR is to verify that the airlines provide on their website, at their counters or in the announcements they make, information necessary to inform passengers of their rights and remedies under the APPR. All of this information is set out in the APPR.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours. You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Oommen, the DOT in the United States has fined major airlines $7 million. How much in fines has the CTA levied against Canada's airlines?

[Tom Oommen]

Mr. Chair, we post on our website all of the administrative monetary penalties that have been issued by the agency. We do that by year and by different area so that—

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

Do you know the total of that, Mr. Oommen?

[Tom Oommen]

Mr. Chair, we do know the total. Specifically related to the APPR, the agency has issued $171,000 in AMPs, many of which were issued since April 1 of this year.

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

That's $7 million versus $171,000.

I have a separate question. How did the CTA communicate to airlines that it intends to use section 67.4?

[Tom Oommen]

There's a formal procedure of pleadings in complaint cases. The way the process works is that when there's a complaint before the agency, there are several steps by which the agency issues information or decisions, intermediate decisions, and at an early stage what the agency will say to the two parties in the dispute is that it is the intention of the agency—

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

What I'm asking is if that information is public. Is it posted on your website somewhere? Can we find the communication with the airlines?

[Tom Oommen]

Mr. Chair, the communication with the airlines is with the airlines and the passengers who are party to those particular cases.

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

What information can passengers obtain to decide whether to pursue a complaint? I'm on flight that's been cancelled. I send an email to Air Canada, WestJet, or whatever airline I'm on. They send me back an email saying, sorry, we'll give you a voucher, but otherwise you're out luck. What information am I entitled to in order to decide whether I have a case to complain to the CTA?

[Tom Oommen]

Mr. Chair, that's actually something the agency is proud of. We have made efforts to put a lot of information on our website.

In particular, in response to the question that was just raised, when complainants go to our website and are trying to determine what their rights are and what their next steps in potentially doing a complaint are, there are a bunch of drop-down menus—

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

What I'm getting at, Mr. Chair, through you, is what information is there about that flight and about those circumstances?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. Unfortunately, there's no time left for the first panel.

I want to thank all of our witnesses, on behalf of all of the members, for their testimony today.

We will now suspend for two minutes as we transfer over to the witnesses for our second panel. The meeting is now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Appearing before us for the second round, we have Mr. Jeff Morrison, president and chief executive officer of the National Airlines Council of Canada, as well as Mr. Andrew Gibbons from WestJet Airlines.

We will begin with Mr. Gibbons for your opening remarks.

You have five minutes.

[Andrew Gibbons, Vice-President, External Affairs, WestJet Airlines Ltd.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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 Alghabra 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons, for your opening remarks.

Next, we have Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Jeff Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Airlines Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison.

We will begin our round of questioning with Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard from the first panel. I believe it was the CTA that indicated that the purpose of the APPR was to bring airlines into compliance or to change their behaviour.

Mr. Gibbons, could you maybe talk...? Have the APPR forced your airline to change its behaviour, and if so, how?