Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

I have only about 20 seconds left, so I want to thank both of you again, gentlemen. Thanks for answering my questions as truthfully as you could, and thanks again to your labour force.

If you could, Mr. Morrison, would you please follow up with this committee with an answer—a written response—to that last question I asked?

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thanks very much, Mr. Lewis.

Next we have Ms. Koutrakis.

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

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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?

[Andrew Gibbons]

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 minister 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.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Would you like to add to that, Mr. Morrison?

[Jeff Morrison]

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.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Here's the other question I have for either of you.

Maybe, Mr. Gibbons, you can start. What are you doing to make sure the passengers, the travellers next summer, are going to have a much better experience than they did last year? What are you and your colleagues at WestJet doing to make sure you're better prepared or to offer a better client experience this time around?

[Andrew Gibbons]

First and foremost, we're working with the minister and all sector partners. He, to his credit—and I said this at committee last time—brought all of these groups together to alleviate a lot of problems for the Canadian traveller, and we work very collaboratively with him.

Our request is that this level of engagement continue on a regular basis and that all service providers, no matter what their role is in the system, are together in planning out very peak operation periods, including this Christmas.

Number one is to continue that work.

Number two is to stabilize our operations in our own business, right? We have an obligation to do that. We're accountable when we fail to do that. I think that's reflected in the recommendations here today. We play a role for sure, and we've been held accountable for that role, as we should be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

[Jeff Morrison]

When we speak to our international counterparts about how we can best simplify, how we can better improve, the travel experience in Canada, they always come back to putting in place a stronger aviation system overall. They refer to the fees paid in Canada, which are significantly higher than those paid in Europe or the United States. There are many ways in which they seek to improve the overall system.

In terms of the regulations regarding the APPR, I think there's an understanding that there are similarities between the two; that central focus of the need to re-book a passenger in the event of disruptions is common across them.

With respect to Canada, as I stated earlier, there are some significant geographical and population differences that would suggest that an equivalent set of regulations between Canada and the EU, for example, would not be that same sort of fair and balanced approach that the previous minister addressed. There are a number of reasons why, perhaps, it wouldn't work, but there are some things that we can do better that the Europeans and other international carriers have asked for in the Canadian system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

Finally for today, we have Mr. Bachrach.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want you to bear with me for a second while I walk through a scenario.

From a passenger's perspective, a delay or a cancellation related to something that is within a carriers control feels exactly the same as a delay or a cancellation that is within a carriers control but related to safety. Now, the APPR are the air passenger protection regulations. Why should air passengers not be compensated in exactly the same way for those two different scenarios?

[Andrew Gibbons]

I think that's a great question for the author of the APPR. I mentioned in my remarks that there was a lot of discussion and debate around this precise issue when he wrote the regulations and when he testified at committee and introduced them to Canada's Parliament. I think it's probably worthwhile to revisit those arguments from that time.

I want to note that if it's not within our control, I don't want to leave a false impression that the guest is not cared for by our organization. They are. The question is the extent to which. That's the example I gave earlier about the gentleman in Regina. It's not an all-or-nothing issue. The guest will always be looked after by our company, consistent with the APPR. The question is whether additional entitlements and additional penalties are warranted. That's where we have differences.

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

If we look at this issue broadly, I think it's interesting to think about what the indicators of success actually look like. One of the main indicators, in my view, would be that the travelling public is satisfied with the service they're receiving and the way they're compensated when they're disadvantaged or inconvenienced.

We're in a situation right now where everyone seems really ticked off by the situation. There are thousands of Canadians who had their lives upended. There were people sleeping on the floors of our airports. I've been on flights that have been cancelled without any reason whatsoever, with absolutely no care for the experience of the passenger.

Regardless of what the specific prescription for remedying the situation is, I think we all agree that things as they stand right now are not tenable.

To both of the gentlemen before us, do you agree that the minister should open up the APPR and fix the regulations?

[Jeff Morrison]

First of all, on the question about the satisfaction and that that should be the main indicator, it's without question. Being able to get from point A to point B safely and efficiently should be, by far, the main objective—and it is for airlines.

Have there been disruptions? There is no question. Again, the experience of the past two years is very much pandemic-related. We need to put that into context.

Should the minister be looking to open the APPR? Again, I would argue that the most efficient improvement to the APPR is to ensure that people never have to use it, that we reduce or minimize the need for its use by passengers in the first place. That's why we've called for an overall improvement to the system, so that if passengers can get from A to B efficiently, that is the metric of success we want to promote.

[Andrew Gibbons]

We believe it should be opened up. There are some key areas that we've recommended. We believe it should be opened up to give the CTA some ability to get information from other service providers the way they do for us. That shared accountability framework should be part of the opening up. Part of the opening up should be eliminated in the small carrier provision, so that all travellers are created equally—I mean treated equally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I think that's a perfect way to end, Mr. Gibbons.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Andrew Gibbons]

We have our own recommendations for opening it up, but like Mr. Morrison says, first and foremost it's the system.

I'd just go back to the CTA's testimony: there were 1,700 complaints in the last fiscal year before COVID-19 started, and 5,800 in August alone. We didn't forget how to staff airplanes and manage our business. We're one of the most successful airlines in the world. We need a period of stability to get our solid footing, financially and otherwise. Our recommendation is not to make major incursions at this time, so as to allow for.... Definitely it is very much in our recommendations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons. I'm going to have to end it there, unfortunately.

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

With that, this meeting is adjourned.