Evidence of meeting #47 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 video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
In fact, we are responsible for making the regulations under the law which is passed by Parliament.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In the past year, have you met with any airline representatives, such as lobbyists, for example?
4 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
We have two roles, the first of which is that of a court. We have the powers of a superior court. We are there to resolve disputes between parties. That aspect of our mandate is very strictly governed and there is absolutely no direct contact between the parties.
On the other hand, in our regulatory enforcement role, like any other regulatory agency, we do have to be in contact with companies on occasion to resolve certain issues. Now, those contacts are really framed in that context.
We recently published a statement on our website about our independence, explaining how we maintain that independence, while still being able to perform our regulatory enforcement role effectively.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Have you met with representatives of consumer protection bodies in the course of your regulatory activities?
4 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Indeed. I met on at least two occasions with representatives of the Automobile Protection Association, which is very important in the field of travel given the role it plays. I also met with the heads of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. In addition, at least twice a year I have meetings with representatives of disability rights groups, given the role the agency plays in accessible transport.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Our legislation, unlike European legislation, provides for three categories of flight disruptions, one of which includes disruptions attributable to the airline, but necessary for safety reasons. Should this “loophole” be closed, as it appears to be problematic in the resolution of complaints and compensation?
Sometimes an airline will say that a disruption was necessary for safety reasons, even though everything seemed to be working fine. We want to believe this, but the company does not provide details. Does this become a loophole? Safety is very important, that's very clear to everyone, but should we simplify things by removing this category or changing it?
4 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
It would be good to have a clearer understanding of what passengers are entitled to. At the moment we have to navigate through different grey areas. If we could tighten up the rules, it would certainly help passengers. It would also help the industry to better understand its obligations. It would also help us, particularly in the context of enforcement, but also for the court, when it comes to making decisions.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. Pégeot and Ms. Vignola.
Next we have Mr. Bachrach.
Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with some questions for Ms. Pégeot.
Thank you for being here. You mentioned the need to clarify the flight categories, which are listed in section 86.11 of the Canada Transportation Act. Canada, as you mentioned, has three categories. It seems as though a lot of the behaviour we're seeing from the airlines stems from the fact that there's this loophole in section 86.11 that allows airlines to construe almost every issue resulting in delays or cancellations as a safety issue. We're talking about flying aircraft through the air with hundreds of people on them, so lots of things are related to safety.
The European Union takes a very different tack. In the European Union there are only two categories. There's a category for ordinary disruptions. These are disruptions that could have been avoided by reasonable action on the part of the airline, such as making sure there are enough crew, making sure there are enough aircraft, or making sure those aircraft are properly maintained. The other category is extraordinary circumstances. These are things like terrorism or things like manufacturing defects that are identified by the manufacturer of the plane.
Why did Canada...? Maybe that's not the question for the CTA, because it goes back to the origin of the regulations, but do you feel that it would be productive for us to move towards the more simplified, two-category system that the EU uses? The EU is held up as having the gold standard when it comes to air passenger regulations.
I'll pose that question to you and then perhaps to the folks from Transport Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
These are not in the regulations. Those three categories are in the legislation.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's right. They're in the Canada Transportation Act, yes. I'm sorry if I misspoke.
4:05 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
I think the minister mentioned in the session before that he was looking at clarity. As I've just mentioned, I think having more clarity around those categories would certainly help.
I'd like to maybe point out too that the tribunal issued two decisions this summer with respect to areas around safety. In some cases, the companies were arguing that a crew shortage caused some safety issues. What the agency said in that context was that with regard to the safety rule, if the safety issue was because of the action or inaction of the company, it could not use this excuse to not compensate passengers. The agency also put the bar fairly high, I would argue, in terms of using safety as an excuse not to compensate.
In those two cases, as we know, one has been challenged before the court by one company, and the other company challenged as well and appealed our decision. In the second case, the court did not accept the appeal.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My understanding, just to follow up, is that in the case that was allowed leave to appeal, the judge said, yes, it seems like there's a lack of clarity; I can understand that reading of the legislation.
Does that not point to the need to close that loophole and move towards a simplified categorization?
4:05 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
I would not want to speak for the judge, because in the end the judge has to decide based on what is in front of them and what was prepared to go for the appeal.
I'm not ready to qualify this as a loophole. I think bringing more clarity, as the minister indicated as well, would certainly be beneficial.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm going to shift to a different topic. I'd like to ask the folks from Transport Canada about administrative monetary penalties. I'd perhaps start by asking a broader question: What is the purpose of these administrative monetary penalties? What's the policy objective?
4:05 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Maybe I should answer that, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure. Those penalties exist in the legislation. That's why I thought it might be....
4:05 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
The objective of those penalties is to achieve compliance. We have many tools to achieve compliance. A key one is processing complaints, which actually gives compensation to the passengers. That's why at the core of our regime is a remedial regime to provide that compensation to the passengers in order to somewhat counteract some of the problems they would have had. When we provide administrative monetary penalties, it's another tool to achieve compliance.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When you fined WestJet recently, I believe there were 53 infractions and 55 separate violations, and the amount you fined them amounted to $200 per passenger affected.
Now, the cost of providing the compensation under the APPR was between $400 and $1,000. You can see why, as a company that is looking to maximize profits and minimize costs, there's an incentive here to skirt the rules. First of all, you don't get caught very often. A very small fraction of passengers ever file a complaint with the CTA. Then, when you finally do get busted and the CTA slaps your wrist, it costs you only $200 per passenger. That seems like a screaming deal.
Can you see the point?
4:10 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Let me explain to you what we have done. First of all, those administrative monetary penalties were not provided because there was no compensation. Those monetary penalties were given because the company did not respond within 30 days to the complaints. That's the first point I'd like to make.
The other is that according to administrative law, when you have a system providing administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, you need to have a gradual or incremental approach, so that the next time we have a company like WestJet or others—because we have given AMPs to Air Canada, to Flair, for the same offence—we would therefore double the penalty and continue like that. That's essentially what the principle of administrative law—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Unfortunately, Ms. Pégeot, I have to stop you here.
Mr. Bachrach, you can continue with this line of questioning in your next round.
Next we have Ms. Lantsman.
Ms. Lantsman, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thanks, everybody, for accepting the invitation to appear before our committee.
Madame Pégeot, I want to bring something to your attention. In the last hour, we heard the minister say Sunwing had violated passenger rights. That's new information, and it's rather at odds with what he said about the impartiality of the CTA.
Besides that, do you believe that to be true? If so, is there a way to expedite the compensation for Canadians who were stranded this holiday season on their travel plans related to Sunwing? I'm sure we can clear up a lot of that backlog if the minister is saying, loud and clear, in committee, that “Sunwing violated passenger rights.”
4:10 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Okay. I may have missed that quote from the minister.
Actually, from the outset, when the situation started at the end of December, our enforcement officers were on the ground and were actively monitoring the situation, were gathering information and have now launched some investigations, so I can assure you that if the regulations were not complied with, we will take action.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
The problem—and I think why we're here at committee—is that Canadians feel left behind. There is a backlog of 33,000 cases that they're hearing about, many of them taking 18 months to get compensation. These are people who saved up all their money to take a family trip, to finally go away for Christmas or to finally reunite with their families, so you can understand the frustration in trying to clear this backlog.
I just want to jump over to the Canada Transportation Act, the legislation we're talking about. There is a section in there that says the minister can issue policy directions to the CTA. That again goes counter to impartiality, but it's within the legislation that he can provide policy direction.
I just want to know if you've had any policy direction from the government with respect to tightening enforcement on passenger rights, which we've talked about and which may come later. The minister has that ability now. Have you gotten any policy direction with respect to enhanced enforcement on notices of violation or any meaningful administrative monetary policy, on which my colleague just asked for the reason...? I think the reason he asked what that was all about is that $200 doesn't seem like a monetary penalty that's going to make a dent in these big airlines. I just want to know if you got any policy direction.
4:10 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Let me first say that I am certainly not happy to have 30,000 complaints in the backlog. This is something that we have been working on really diligently, to improve our processes and to make sure that we use as well as possible the budget we have been given. I know that this year, for example, we'll be able to deal with 2,500 more complaints than we did last year.
We have received some directions from the minister or from previous ministers. For example, it is on the direction of the minister that we have developed a new regulation on refunds, which is a gap that was identified during COVID. There was no provision in the regulation to provide refunds to consumers when the incident was outside the control of the companies. We have resolved that gap, resulting in a new regulation that came into force in September.