Transport Committee on Jan. 26th, 2023

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Lukács, thank you again for being back at committee. We did receive your rather robust set of written recommendations. Thank you for those 26 pages, including the appendix, in which there are at least seven years of history for cases you were involved in, although I think you referred to the fact that there were more beyond that.

On pages 19 and 20, you talk about the culpability of the federal government in a couple of aspects. Given the fact that you wrote this in December, prior to what we saw transpire over the holiday period with the baggage issues and the airport mess and all that we saw, maybe you can expand upon it.

What you refer to there is the campaign to sort of defeat the passenger rights that took place around the beginning of the pandemic, and I think that speaks to maybe one of the two aspects you were talking about: the lack of enforcement. Maybe you can expand on that in view of the fact that we've seen what has happened in the past month.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Thank you for the question.

When the pandemic started, several emails were floating between Transport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency—emanating primarily, it seems so far, from Air Transat—requesting help to defeat provincial consumer protection laws requiring refunds for passengers whose flights were not operating. The Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada were complicit in that. Ultimately, a misleading statement was issued on the Canadian Transportation Agency's website on March 25, 2020, giving passengers false information or the false impression that they had no right to actual refunds and that they somehow had to just accept vouchers. We are currently continuing litigation to unearth everything that happened there and to hold the Canadian Transportation Agency accountable for that.

That type of disinformation campaign continued in the recent amendments to the APPR, where the government was misleading the public into believing there was a gap in the APPR, while none existed. The obligation to refund passengers has been the law in Canada since 2004. It just hasn't been consolidated into a single piece of legislation in the APPR.

The government has now, as of September 2022, actually backpedalled on the existing right for a refund and created the impression—again, the false impression—that passengers do not have the right to a refund if their flight is cancelled for reasons outside of the carrier's control and the airline offers them an alternative flight within 48 hours. One reason—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács. Unfortunately, we have to end it there.

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

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses this afternoon.

Critics have described Canada's air transportation system as having a data black hole, wherein reliable data on on-time performance or customs and security queues are inaccessible or unreliable.

Mr. Jack, I think you touched on that earlier in your testimony. I'm wondering if you agree with that statement or if you can expand on it. If you can, how can the Government of Canada increase data transparency to empower all participants in air travel to make an informed decision, which will improve operational performance?

[Ian Jack]

Absolutely. That was one of the four things I mentioned as well in the opening remarks—specifically, more transparency for the carriers so that we can all understand what their rate is for resolving complaints. We know how many complaints come to the CTA, but we don't know how many complaints go to a carrier in which people have asked for something. We don't know how many times the carrier says yes or no, or how many bags they're losing, etc. This information should all be public, as it is in other jurisdictions, so that people can judge and people can put pressure on carriers. People can even decide who they want to fly with based on who's losing more bags out of Pearson, if they want to. Why not?

To the broader point of data, though, I think you're quite right that we've had long-standing concerns that go back to even before the APPR—about CATSA, let's say, and their on-time performance and how that's measured and how transparent they are. We think all the players in the system absolutely should be making performance standards public. They should have them. They should be public, and we should be able to measure against them so that we understand what the performance is like among all the players.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Is there a role for the Government of Canada, though, to empower all the participants in air travel? Do you see a role for the government? Is it through legislation? Is it through regulation? How do you see that?

[Ian Jack]

On whether it's legislation or regulation, I won't offer an opinion. That's for the lawyers, I think, but yes, somebody in government has to do that.

As I also said earlier, the carriers have all this information. They're choosing right now not to make it public. Somebody's going to have to tell them to do it. None of them will want to go first. If there's a rule from government, whether regulatory or legislative, and they all know that as of a certain date they have to make this information public, it's more likely to happen.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

We also know that Canadian airlines have significantly more work to do to ensure that they meet the needs of all their travellers, including Canadians with accessibility needs and those flying with mobility aids. We've heard a lot about unfortunate incidents that have happened recently. If a traveller is flying with their mobility aid, they rightfully expect that it will make it to their destination and that it will be undamaged. Anything else is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Lawford, maybe you can weigh in on this. How could the APPR be strengthened to improve accessibility and inclusivity, particularly for persons with disabilities?

[John Lawford]

I wish I were an expert in this area. I will beg off and say I'm not sure that the new Accessible Canada Act has been compared to the regulations in detail. I presume that Transport Canada is doing that and recommending changes to the APPR to match.

I've seen the same stories that you've seen. Unfortunately, we're not a disability rights group, so I don't have better information. I'd throw it to any of the other witnesses, if they can answer it.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I wonder if Mr. Lukács has something to say about that.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

I do. Thank you for the question.

There is also a set of regulations with respect to the transportation of persons with disabilities, which impose on the airline various responsibilities with respect to assistance and liability in the case of the damage, loss and delay in the transfer of mobility aids.

Part of the problem is, as usual, compliance. Yes, those rules exist. Yes, those obligations exist. However, I'm not aware of any case where an airline was held seriously accountable by the Canadian Transportation Agency for breaches of these obligations.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you for that.

This is my last question, and it could go to anyone who is willing to weigh in on this. We've recently heard about flight cancellations made by Sunwing in Saskatchewan—I believe in Winnipeg, as well—effectively ruining the plans of thousands of Canadians.

We've heard that compensation is the way to go, but what responsibility do you believe airlines should have toward their customers in these circumstances, besides compensation? Is that the ultimate, or are there other things that air carriers should be responsible for?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Thank you for the question.

The law is already quite clear in this area that airlines have to re-book passengers on alternative flights. Certainly, that has been applicable to large carriers, both domestic and international. It is applicable through the Montreal Convention. Even the small carriers operating internationally...although it may be harder for passengers to enforce that.

That's one more reason why we so strongly support abolishing the distinction between small and large carriers, or lowering the threshold for small and large carriers. It's to clarify that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukács.

Unfortunately, we don't have any time to expand on that.

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Lehoux, it's your turn. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

I'd like more than one organization to answer my first question.

This isn't the first time these issues have come up. This situation happens year after year. We're talking about models used abroad, especially in Europe.

In your opinion, why are we still questioning the reasons for which changes haven't been made? What's keeping things from moving forward?

Is there a lack of interest or willingness on anyone's part, anywhere, to protect travellers and the public?

[John Lawford]

The path we chose lies between two roads. It's the Canadian path, so to speak. We have a three-category regime that differentiates between small and large carriers. Perhaps the issues we had were foreseeable, maybe they weren't, but we can back up and choose another path. It's going to take a lot of effort, help from Parliament and a report recommending it. Of course, the pandemic has been hard on the airlines as well.

[Ian Jack]

I agree with Mr. Lawford.

The Air Passenger Protection Regulations came into force three months before the COVID‑19 pandemic, so the circumstances were anything but normal. Things still aren't back to normal, but we've been getting closer to that for six to nine months, and in that time we've seen that the regime has significant deficiencies that need to be addressed.

So I wouldn't say it's negligence because there was nothing to look at during the pandemic. Now we have proof that the regime needs to change.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Lukács, would you like to comment?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

I do.

I agree that we now need to take a different route, because when we were talking in the past, it didn't require some kind of crystal ball to see that the way this path, with respect to how the APPR, was constructed would result in the current situation. We predicted that already in February 2019, in a 52-page report that we published. It was foreseeable.

Why the government would go against what everyone who knows and understands the industry was able to foresee is a matter of political influence, in terms of which advisers the government was or wasn't listening to and what type of influence and clout the airline industry had with the government as opposed to consumers.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Hayman, would you like to add something?

[Tim Hayman]

I don't have anything further on that particular subject.

Thank you, though.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Earlier, in response to a number of questions from my colleagues, you talked about the minister's and cabinet's authority to make changes, and to do so in a very short period of time, since the March break and new situations are around the corner.

In your opinion, if the minister really wants to, is there anything he can do to ensure that the disastrous situations that occurred over the holidays don't happen again?

[John Lawford]

The minister can change things quickly by issuing directives to the Canadian Transportation Agency, but I don't know if cabinet is deadlocked or not. In terms of fundamental changes, it's going to take a lot longer.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have less than 10 seconds left, Mr. Lehoux.