Transport Committee on Jan. 26th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 3, 2022, the committee is meeting to discuss air passenger protection.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform committee members that all witnesses have been tested for today's meeting and have passed the sound test.

Members, appearing before us are the following. Mr. Gábor Lukács is president of Air Passenger Rights. He is appearing by video conference. We have, from the Canadian Automobile Association, Mr. Ian Jack, vice-president, public affairs, and Mr. Jason Kerr, managing director, government relations. From the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Mr. John Lawford is the executive director and general counsel. Finally, from Transport Action Atlantic, we have Mr. Tim Hayman, president, joining us by video conference.

Welcome to all of our witnesses.

We'll begin today by turning it over to Mr. Lukács for five-minute opening remarks.

The floor is yours.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács, President, Air Passenger Rights]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, Air Passenger Rights is Canada’s independent non-profit organization of volunteers devoted to empowering travellers. We take no government or business funding. We have no business interest in the travel industry. We speak for passengers, whom we help daily in their struggle to enforce their rights.

In our December 19, 2022, submissions to the committee, we cautioned that the air passenger protection regime is broken. We proposed specific legislative amendments as a solution. Mere days later, during the holiday season, Canadians witnessed a second meltdown of air travel in 2022, compounded by airlines’ flagrant disregard for passengers’ rights under the APPR. During inclement weather, airlines left hundreds of passengers confined to aircraft on the tarmac without proper food and water for up to 10 to 12 hours, contrary to sections 8 and 9 of the APPR. Earlier this month, you heard testimony that airlines did not ask the airport for help with getting food and water to passengers on the tarmac, even though the airport had available resources.

Once the inclement weather passed, the airlines still failed to re-book passengers in a timely manner, contrary to section 18 of the APPR. WestJet refused to re-book passengers on available Air Canada flights, even when no WestJet flights were available for days. Air Canada was selling “next available” flights on its website at a premium and re-booked stranded passengers days later. Sunwing left passengers stranded abroad for days and blamed the government for Sunwing’s own irresponsible decision to sell flights without having enough pilots. We recently learned that Air Canada has been donating passengers’ missing bags to a charity instead of returning them to their rightful owners. You also heard that the CTA’s backlog has risen to 33,000 complaints following the holiday season, with an 18-month or longer wait time.

It is now clear to everyone that the status quo is untenable. We propose to eliminate two points of failure in the current regime—namely, the lack of enforcement and the unnecessary complexity. Airlines have the single objective of maximizing their profits. The only reason that airlines violate passengers’ rights is that the cost of compliance exceeds the cost of flouting the law. While the Canada Transportation Act permits the CTA to fine airlines up to $25,000 per violation, per passenger, per incident, that power has largely fallen into disuse.

You have heard testimony that the CTA has never fined an airline for failing to pay compensation owed under the APPR. From an airline’s perspective, the worst consequence of failing to obey the APPR is occasionally being ordered to pay what the passenger was owed anyway.

This must change. Without hefty fines for violations, there is no incentive for airlines to comply with the APPR—or with any other regulation, for that matter. For example, if the odds of an airline being caught not paying a $400 compensation is one out of 100, that being 1%, then any fine of less than $40,000 per violation is ineffective, making it cheaper for the airline to pay the fine than to systematically comply.

Fines alone, however, will not get rid of the CTA’s backlog. The APPR not only creates an undue hurdle for passengers seeking compensation. It also requires a complex evidentiary record whose consideration consumes disproportionately large resources compared with the amounts at stake. This unnecessary complexity is also partly responsible for the CTA’s backlog, which has ballooned in spite of the additional resources allocated to the CTA in the 2022 budget.

A regime that requires over 1,000 pages of documents and a full-day trial to determine the fate of $400 is doomed to fail. In comparison, under the European Union’s regime, a passenger’s eligibility to compensation can be decided with limited publicly available information and minimal documentary evidence in most cases.

In Canada, Parliament’s intervention is warranted. We implore you, the lawmakers, to amend the Canada Transportation Act by both enhancing enforcement and harmonizing the framework with the European Union’s passenger protection regime. Doing only one of the two will not make the problem go away.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács.

Next we have the Canadian Automobile Association.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Ian Jack, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to you about something very significant that resonates with all Canadians.

My name is Ian Jack. As mentioned, I'm the vice-president of public affairs for our national office in Ottawa. My colleague Jason Kerr joins me today to help answer your questions.

Most of you will be familiar with the CAA brand founded in 1913. We are a federation of eight clubs, today providing more than 6.8 million Canadians coast to coast with emergency roadside service—you all know about the tow truck—but also automotive insurance, rewards and travel services. We're also a not-for-profit that has always advocated on issues of concern to our members.

Through our store network and online, we are one of Canada's largest leisure travel agencies, with close to 100 retail outlets. We are a member-driven organization that, at its heart, is an advocate for the Canadian traveller.

Our travel agents work with air passengers every day, so we understand the business. This allows us to take a strong, informed position in favour of air passenger rights while at the same time recognizing that the consumer interest is best served by a healthy and competitive industry.

When Canada's air passenger protection regulations were originally being developed, CAA called for an efficient and effective regime. We said the process for passengers to claim what they have a right to from the airlines should be simple and proactive. Unfortunately, this is not the case today.

The average passenger in this country does not have the protections that come with premium status or full-fare tickets. The APPR needs to help these passengers most of all and today is missing the mark. The goal of the system should be to incentivize carriers to take care of passengers without the need to resort to the government complaint process. For those cases that do make it to the Canadian Transportation Agency, the process needs to be simple and clear enough that answers can be delivered in a timely manner.

I would like to highlight for you quickly four of our many recommendations to improve the air passenger experience in Canada.

One, the APPR regime does not require direct, immediate payments of compensation to passengers in straightforward, clear-cut cases. If it's obvious that an entire planeload of passengers is owed compensation, the airline should tell all passengers they are owed this compensation and simply ask them how they would like to be paid. The lack of proactive compensation slows a carrier's ability to process other complaints and has helped choked the CTA with an unacceptable backlog.

What do Canadians think of this idea, by the way? Our recent national polling found that 75% of Canadians believe carriers should bear the responsibility for contacting passengers to deliver compensation for a flight interruption.

Two, the minister should have clear authority to refer matters to the CTA for investigation and should also have the ability to make orders affecting the air sector generally under extraordinary circumstances. We would expect these sticks to be used rarely, but their presence would likely affect behaviour.

Three, maximum and minimum AMP limits should replace the discretionary system in place today, and for repeated offences, applicable AMPS should automatically increase.

Four, there should be public reporting of performance by carriers and others in the system. Transparency will allow passengers, parliamentarians and advocates to judge how well the air system in Canada is functioning for passengers. Carriers are supposed to deal with complaints within 30 days. What's their success rate? How many cases do they accept or reject? How many bags were lost in the last quarter? None of us knows. We should.

Players in the system have this data. In the U.S., many of these statistics are published month by month online, and airlines compete against each other in these areas. This translates into better service and treatment for travellers.

Mr. Chair, I will stop here.

We welcome your questions.

Once again, thank you very much for inviting me to appear before you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jack.

Next we have the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, my name is John Lawford. I'm the executive director and general counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. PIAC has advocated in the field of air passenger protection for over 20 years.

Until just before this Christmas travel season, PIAC had hoped that the air passenger protection regulations were adequate. Then we were concerned that this committee would overreact to airline pressure and either completely remove them or at least significantly amend them and actually weaken them in a misguided effort to fix them. We recommended “a dedicated administrative complaints agency with a regulatory overseer for systemic issues.”

Then December happened. Horribly, sadly and very predictably, conditions arose and the backlog of complaints to the CTA rose to over 30,000. I'm here to say that we were wrong. The problems with the APPR are not superficial, and it's not about improving them around the edges. They are structurally unsound.

The three conditions or aspects of events that define the effects of the APPR on consumers—namely, “within the airline's control”, “for safety” or “outside the control”—have shown themselves to be unnecessary complications that bring the complaints system to a practical halt and usually actually resolve against the interests of consumers.

We now believe, based on this experience, that this whole “control, safety, outside control” structure is completely unworkable and will always generate lengthy disputes that must be slowly and painfully decided. This creates more problems, as the APPR now generates more complaints than the prior CTA tariff review track yet must still be adjudicated formally and done so based not only on those three criteria but also with no clear burden on the airlines to bring forward their claim—and they have all the evidence of the claim within their control. Lastly, the regulations are not clear on these matters.

As a result, PIAC is now withdrawing our support for the APPR as drafted, and we are now recommending to this committee that you rewrite them in the format of the European rules, namely, that consumers are owed all of the refunds, care and compensation in the regulations, tariffs and the Montreal Convention, with the only exception being not paying out standardized compensation in “extraordinary circumstances”.

Assuming this committee will simply recommend those structural changes—maybe not—PIAC has concerns about the immediate travel challenge for Canadians: March break 2023. To avoid another travel Armageddon, we need to fix baggage delays; re-booking, rerouting and refunds for weather; and definitions of “denial of boarding” and “flight cancellation”, and we need to make clear that the evidentiary onus lies on airlines, not passengers, in all complaints.

Therefore, we recommend that this committee—and this is quite technical—invite the minister to issue a direction, under CTA subsection 86.11(2), to ensure the CTA makes regulations to compensate passengers for delayed baggage. Then we recommend that the committee—this is in two parts—invite cabinet, under section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act, to pass a new regulation based on the old delayed baggage one, which was subsection 23(2) of the APPR and which was wiped out by the Federal Court of Appeal pending eventual amendment by Parliament to fix the Canada Transportation Act, and to insert the word “delayed” in paragraph 86.11(1)(c).

We also invite you to invite cabinet to direct all carriers, including the small carriers, to refund, re-book and reroute—even on a competing carrier—all passengers for any cancellations or long delays. This may require an amendment to the definition of “carriers” as large or small. We note here that the threshold for passengers is two million a year. It may have to be lowered quite significantly.

Secondly, we invite cabinet to replace the APPR definitions with those of the EU for “denial of boarding” and “flight cancellation”.

Lastly, we ask that you recommend that Parliament amend the Canada Transportation Act to declare that in subsection 86.11(1), which is the source of all these regulations, it was always intended that the airline should bear the burden of proof in establishing exceptions to refunds, care and compensation.

Lastly, to do with the backlog, we believe that justice delayed is already being denied, and consumers with complaints in the 33,000-case backlog have no reasonable prospect of relief. The CTA must at least triage and categorize these complaints and issue directory decisions on each type in a show-cause style notice to the air carriers for all similar cases.

We note that this was done with some early COVID-based complaints. It could be done again.

I look forward to all of your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawford.

Finally, we have Mr. Hayman from Transport Action Atlantic.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Tim Hayman, President, Transport Action Atlantic]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Hayman. I'm the president of Transport Action Atlantic and a board member of Transport Action Canada. Transport Action is a non-profit organization advocating for convenient, affordable and sustainable public transportation, with a particular focus on passenger rail.

I was also one of the hundreds of Via Rail passengers affected by train delays and cancellations on December 23, 2022. That's what I'll be speaking to this afternoon.

While much attention has been focused on incidents in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, particularly in this morning's session, Via Rail's eastern trains—including The Ocean, which runs between Halifax and Montreal—also suffered issues as a result of the winter storm and the failure of the infrastructure owner or host railway, namely Canadian National or CN, to effectively provide safe passage for the Via trains that operate on their network.

I was travelling home on board Via train 14, which was scheduled to depart Montreal at 7 p.m. on December 23. Our train departure was initially delayed by over 11 hours, as we were informed that a section of the line ahead in the Mont-Joli subdivision in eastern Quebec was impassable. This delay was needed to provide CN adequate time to reopen the line.

When we finally departed, we made it only as far as Rivière-du-Loup, when we were informed that CN repair crews had reportedly called it quits for the day—fortunate as they were to go home for Christmas Eve—and wouldn't return until some time the following day. With apparently no other option, short of an overnight layover in Rivière-du-Loup, our train was sent back to Montreal, arriving after three in the morning on Christmas day, exactly where we started and over 30 hours after we first boarded the train.

Passengers on the westbound train 15 from Halifax fared no better. Their train was left stranded for as many hours at Campbellton, New Brunswick, before being sent back to Halifax.

I was fortunate enough to find a flight home late on Christmas day at significant personal expense, but many passengers simply saw their plans to visit family for the holidays forfeited entirely. In some cases, they were left waiting in Montreal for several days, due to train cancellations in the corridor.

My experience, and those faced by other passengers, raised a number of questions that are applicable and need to be asked about the issues affecting both The Ocean and Via's corridor trains. These mirror much of what was discussed during Via's testimony before this committee this morning.

In short, first, what was the exact nature of the issues making train lines impassable? In the specific case of the Mont-Joli subdivision, why were CN crews unable to clear the line as expected?

What efforts did CN make to prioritize opening rail lines and avoiding stranding Via trains and their passengers?

What contingency planning does CN have in place for these scenarios? How did their efforts here compare to the efforts that would be made to clear a high-priority freight line? In particular, how do holidays such as Christmas affect the ability to provide crews to maintain rail operations?

In the case of stranded corridor trains, what prevented CN locomotives and crews from the Oshawa and Belleville yards being dispatched to assist stranded Via trains?

There were power failures affecting CN's level crossing protection and signal systems. Are sufficient backup supplies in place to maintain these critical safety systems during power failures?

Was there any consideration of alternative routing for Via trains, for example, over the Napadogan subdivision through New Brunswick, or the parallel Canadian Pacific lines in the corridor?

Does Via have recourse within their train service agreements with CN to seek compensation for a failure to move their trains in a timely fashion or to their destinations at all? How could this train service agreement be strengthened in the future to provide sufficient priority for Via services?

In terms of Via's own planning, what more could be done to ensure that trains are stocked with adequate emergency supplies? Are on-board staff adequately trained and prepared to deal with these situations? How can Via improve communications and the sharing of information with passengers? Transport Action previously wrote to the Railway Association of Canada in September 2022, calling for changes to improve protections for stranded passenger trains.

What considerations did Via management give to alternative transportation for passengers to ensure that they could reach their destinations?

Finally, Via is to be commended for their commitment to an internal investigation and for their willingness to appear this morning before this committee. It is disappointing that CN has not done so. Will CN make any commitment to investigate their own performance?

In closing, Transport Action believes that the abysmal performance of Canada's tattered passenger rail system this holiday season should be grounds for a full investigation, beginning with the work of this committee, to determine where government, Via Rail management and the host railways have failed, and recommending immediate action to address this national embarrassment. We hope that actions under consideration will include better contingency planning at Via Rail, a re-examination of the train service agreement between Via and CN, adequate government funding to Via Rail to address equipment and staff shortages that may have contributed to this situation and an exploration of adopting passenger protection standards for rail passengers, similar to those in place for air passengers, whether through policy or legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I will be happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hayman.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Strahl.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that previously we heard from some witnesses here on the APPR in general. The reason we're meeting now, in advance of the House returning, is that the situation is urgent. These are emergency meetings based on particular incidents that occurred right around the Christmas break. I want to just reiterate that we are here on an urgent basis because of that breakdown.

Mr. Lukács, I want to talk to you about the system whereby, as I understand it, if someone sitting in seat 13A is capable and files a successful APPR claim, the airline does not automatically give the same benefit...even though everyone on the plane likely experienced the same delay or cancellation or had the same experience. Have you heard whether there is any movement towards that, or do you believe that an airline, once it has been determined that one passenger on a flight should receive compensation, should automatically compensate all passengers on the same plane?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Thank you for your question.

There is no doubt that common sense dictates that, if one passenger is eligible for compensation, then others on the same plane should be as well. What we have actually been hearing is quite the opposite. People sitting next to each other, possibly a husband and wife, both file a claim and one receives compensation and the other receives a rejection citing the various excuses that are provided under the APPR.

What we also need to bear in mind though is that the compensation amount is based on delay at the destination. If you have two passengers travelling to different destinations, the delay of the given flight or the cancellation of the given flight can affect their arrival time at their final destination differently.

Eligibility can be determined on a flight basis, but the actual amount of compensation may vary based on a passenger's travel plans.

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

Okay.

In our previous discussions, we've been focused on stranded passengers—people who were sleeping on couches in hotel lobbies in foreign countries—but in your testimony you raised the issue about baggage. That is one that I think has been overlooked.

Obviously the focus of the media and so on was more on the stranded people, but as you said, there have been TikTok videos and media reports of individuals who have been able to track their own bags because they have tracking devices in them. They have discovered that, quite frankly, there has been outrageous routing from Montreal to Toronto to warehouses to.... Even when the bags were found, it was determined that the private property of the individual had been, as you said, “donated”, in this case, by Air Canada.

Are there remedies in the APPR to punish the airline for that outrageous behaviour, or do people have to go to the courts, to small claims court and so on, to get back what they're entitled to?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Let's separate the APPR from enforcement.

You see, the APPR is a regulation. The problem with the APPR is that the airlines don't follow the APPR. Whether you go to small claims court or use other means of enforcement, that's about how you enforce your rights as a passenger.

The APPR, with respect to baggage, incorporates the Montreal Convention, which is an international treaty and it's part of the Carriage by Air Act. It extends to domestic baggage loss and damage. For what Mr. Lawford mentioned, delays, there is a little bit of a problem that was created, but for baggage loss it's clear that it's just the Montreal Convention.

In situations of the airline wrongfully disposing of baggage, as in those we have been hearing about, that would be an exceptional case under the Montreal Convention, in which the airline has uncapped liability for the content of the baggage as opposed to the usual approximately $2,300 Canadian liability cap per passenger.

What we have been seeing—an airline taking a passenger's property and donating it without authority to a third party—is not really within the realm of a civil matter. It's a criminal matter, as we heard from a Toronto lawyer. In my view, what we would need to see there is a criminal investigation into how that is possible when it is happening on a large scale.

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

That's very interesting.

My next question, Mr. Lukács, is about what we heard this morning from Via Rail. When I asked if passengers who use rail should come under some sort of compensation regime like the APPR when they're delayed, as they were for 13 hours, they talked about factors outside their control. They don't control the lines, etc.

We hear the same from airlines when we talk about passenger compensation. They say they don't control the airports, they don't control Nav Canada, they don't control the security lineups, they don't control the CBSA and so on. They talk about shared responsibility or shared accountability.

How do we factor in the fact that there are times when airlines are on the pointy end of the stick but other entities have perhaps had an impact? Is that simply a way to deflect responsibility?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

We need to distinguish between the responsibility vis-à-vis the passenger and the ability of the airline to seek compensation from third parties. In the European Union, they thought about this. That's why you have article 13 of the European regulations, which makes it clear that the airline's obligation to passengers does not derogate in any way from the airline's ability to go after those third parties.

These types of excuses are something that the two large corporations, the airline and maybe the subcontractor, should resolve between themselves in commercial litigation. It isn't a consumer matter. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács. Unfortunately, I have to cut you off there. We're out of time.

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

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to all the witnesses who have come out today. I think what we're looking for here is to attach the how to the what. We all understand what the challenges were—maybe not as intimately as those who were experiencing it directly—but from the testimony we've heard throughout the past two meetings, we understand the what. I'm more interested in the how. How do we deal with these challenges? We've heard from the travel industry, such as airlines and rail, but more importantly I want to hear from you.

I want to remind those who are giving testimony that the testimony will be placed in the paper, and it will help us come forward with the how—namely, the recommendations that this committee will be presenting to the minister, with an expectation for his response to be appropriate and accordingly. With that, I'm going to get more into the weeds and get more granular in terms of my questioning, just as I did with the providers.

First, Mr. Lawford, do you think the airlines as well as the rail companies have been short-sighted in their approach to passenger rights?

[John Lawford]

Yes. The first obligation they feel, of course, is to profitably operating. The negative externalities of running too many flights without adequate staff or enough co-operation among these shared accountability partners means that the consumers have to absorb any difficulties first and most painfully.

That would be my answer.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

With that good answer, which was, quite frankly, what I expected, at the same time, just to get a bit more granular in terms of the capacities.... That's what you were referring to in terms of the resiliency, the capacities and the lack thereof with respect to what could have been made available, whether it be from the capital side, the equipment side or the human resources side in terms of the individuals who were part of the response on behalf of their organizations.

My second question to you, Mr. Lawford, is this: Who should pay for the passenger rights system? Whether it be the costs borne by the CTA to investigate complaints, to offer mediation or arbitration services, or to adjudicate when mediation fails, who do you think should actually pay for those processes?

[John Lawford]

At the moment, I guess they are paid by taxpayers through the CTA. There is another model. You can have an ombudsman's service that is paid for by the industry, such as in telecommunications or in banking and finance with the OBSI. That's another model.

I believe when we did our first paper for Mr. Emerson, that was the idea we had. It was to have this extra compensation system run as a pure ombudsman, with the industry paying for it under a non-profit corporation. That model can work. Whether it was something the CTA was ready for, or whether the airline industry rules were too complicated for that system, I'm not sure now.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Again, just going along that line of thought, I'm happy you mentioned the Emerson report, because within that report he comments on a lot more on this issue that we want to investigate as part of our recommendations moving forward. That report has actually been a great reference for us in many of the studies we've done.

I have another question for you. Do you think larger administrative penalties for systemic rights violations would change the behaviours of both the airlines and the rail industry?

[John Lawford]

I do, and I agree with Dr. Lukács's calculus that if you have a 1% sort of flouting of the regulation, you have to administer fines. In other words, if someone isn't paid their compensation, there has to be a separate penalty phase or enforcement fine from the CTA, which it has the power to carry out, and that has to be high. It has to look sort of bizarrely high, because you're assuming there will be a very small amount of enforcement with respect to those violations.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I want to go to you, Mr. Hayman. I was really interested in your opening comments, so I want to give you the opportunity to get on record any further comments with respect to how to address these issues in terms of the recommendations to the minister that this committee is going to be moving forward with. I want to give you some time to expand on your original opening comments since you had limited time.

[Tim Hayman]

Certainly. Thank you. I appreciate that opportunity.

There are two main points in terms of thinking about the how, or at least where to focus that effort, when we get to the discussions around, specifically, the rail sector and how Via Rail's performance was affected at times like this.

I think a huge part of that—and I know it came up quite a bit this morning when Via was talking and members were raising questions—is looking again at that relationship and the communication and interplay between Via and CN—particularly CN. Also, you could look at any other infrastructure owners that Via operates over, but it is predominantly CN.

A lot of that, I think, really come down to the need for some evaluation of the agreements that are in place between Via and CN, which provide track access and actually spell out what obligations each party has, the financial agreements and everything else. Despite the fact that Via is a Crown corporation and publicly funded that way, those agreements are not public information and those aren't things that any member of the general public can look at. I think that would be a really good place to start in terms of seeing where things could potentially be shored up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hayman. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.