:
I call the meeting to order.
First of all, we hope that has safe travels.
Welcome to meeting number 98 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 27, 2023, the committee is continuing its study on the subject mater of supplementary estimates (B), 2023-24.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of all participants.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of their screen of either floor, English, or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing and health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone that the headset is plugged into and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.
I will remind participants that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
Now I would like to present the witnesses for today's meeting.
We have the Honourable Terry Beech, Minister of Citizens' Services, and the Honourable Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Labour and Seniors.
From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Sandra Hassan, deputy minister of labour and associate deputy minister; Cliff Groen, associate deputy minister and chief operating officer for Service Canada; Karen Robertson, chief financial officer; and John Ostrander, business lead, benefits delivery modernization.
Each minister will have five minutes to make statements.
Minister Beech, you have the floor.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Good morning, everyone.
It is a great pleasure to be here with you today.
[English]
to discuss the 2023-24 supplementary estimates (B) as they relate to the Citizens' Services portfolio.
Before I start, since this is my first appearance, it gives me great pleasure to be at this committee, especially with a British Columbian in the chair. It makes me feel at home, so I'm happy to be here.
The creation of a new ministry to serve as the Government of Canada's champion for service delivery excellence comes with a mandate I take very seriously.
First and foremost, it's to place Canadians at the centre of how we design and deliver their services.
Business does this naturally. Competition ensures that products and services are regularly simplified and improved. We must eliminate repetitive paperwork and the need to stand in line or to wait on hold. We must adopt new technology to improve the customer service experience that meets the unique needs of Canadians, whether they are in rural Manitoba, the Arctic, P.E.I., or downtown Vancouver.
If I was to describe my mandate in the simplest possible terms, it encompasses dental, digital and customer service. “Dental” is code in some ways, as it includes not just the onboarding of nine million Canadians onto the largest benefit program in Canadian history but also the delivery of Canada's largest digitalization transformation project through the benefits delivery modernization programme, or BDM.
OAS, EI and CPP benefits represent $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and 39% of the annual federal budget.
I'm also the minister responsible for Service Canada, as well as the Canadian digital service.
The government was pleased to launch the first phase of the Canadian dental care plan on December 11. As of this morning, more than 500,000 seniors are now enrolled in the program in every province and territory.
:
As we last tuned in, we were talking about the 500,000 seniors who, as of this morning, have enrolled in the dental care program. Of those, 73% who applied did so without human interaction. Those who did contact the specialized call centre had waiting times of less than a few seconds.
When it comes to the passport program, we continue to encourage Canadians to apply for a passport as early as possible before booking a trip. In December 2023, 96% of passports were issued within one to 20 business days and the passport backlog of 313,000 from last year has been completely eliminated. Between April 1 and December 31, 2023, we issued more than three million passports.
We continue to drive innovation through the use of automation and artificial intelligence. Soon individuals will be able to renew their passports online, which will eliminate altogether the need to wait in line and will shorten the lines for those who choose to do it in person.
In the meantime, we launched an online passport application status checker, and 1.5 million people have utilized it to track the real-time status of their applications. Those are individuals who don't need to call the call centre or wait in line. It's an example of a government service that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You don't have to take time off work or pay for parking to use it. It is simply a better way of providing the service than was previously available.
We've also expanded the capabilities of the eSIN program. This is a digital program from start to finish that provides millions of transactions online. This is important, because every transaction is one less person standing in front of you at a Service Canada office.
Another example of improving our digital service delivery is the benefits delivery modernization initiative. In the past year alone, we've delivered $147.3 billion in crucial benefits like EI, CPP and OAS to over 9.5 million Canadians. I am pleased to report that we successfully deployed the first release of OAS on BDM this past summer, and 600,000 Canadians are currently receiving their benefits through the new platform. The full migration of OAS remains on track for December of this year.
Since 2017, the BDM programme has spent $817 million, while Treasury Board approvals to date amount to $2.2 billion over a period of more than 10 years.
This leads me to the supplementary estimates.
For BDM, we're requesting an adjustment of $54.2 million. This is a re-profile of funds that were approved to be spent in 2022-23.
Madam Chair, I'd like to thank all members of the committee for inviting me here today and for the work that you do every single day, not just at this committee but in the House and in your constituencies. It's a lot of work, and you often do it away from your families and with competing priorities. No matter how partisan discussion can become in the chamber or even at committee, I reflect often on the fact that we are all playing for the same team. We all want Canada to be successful.
That collaborative effort has made our country one of the best places in the world to live. Delivering a modern customer service experience is an important part of building on that legacy.
Thank you for having me today. After my colleague speaks, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for having me. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
[English]
I want to give you an overview of what I'm working on, and then I'd be happy to take some questions.
I work as the Minister of Labour and as Minister for Seniors, and really, if you look at what drives both of these things, it's dignity. It's making sure that Canadians have dignity in their work so that workers have not just jobs but good jobs—jobs they're trained to do, jobs that they're well paid to do and jobs that are good for them in mind and in body.
I want every senior to age with dignity. That means that they're not making hard choices at the checkout because their fixed income is too tight, and if they need new dentures, they can afford them. They can age where they want, surrounded by the community and the people who they choose.
As the Minister of Labour, I feel that the federal government needs to set the bar for workplaces. That means looking at employers and workers in federally regulated sectors and constantly asking them how we can do better.
In December 2022, we brought in 10 days of paid sick leave for these workers. Workers called for it and employers supported it. The Canadian Bankers Association, Via Rail and others spoke out in support of it, because no worker should have to choose between getting paid and getting better.
Last December we tabled legislation to ban the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Replacement workers distract from the bargaining table, prolong disputes, and can poison workplaces for years. Our economy depends on employers and unions staying at the table and doing the hard work they need to do to reach a deal. Bill is not the same bill that's been brought to Parliament in the past. It was developed through tripartism with workers and employers. Sometimes I was in the room with both of them at the same time. Conversations were tense, but the result was a bill that is going to keep the bargaining table fair and balanced. It also strengthens the maintenance-of-activities process, which is something both employers and workers asked for.
I will use this moment to say that I have the utmost respect for my NDP colleague and his partnership on this issue. I'm disappointed that after 75 days of tabling legislation, we haven't got the support where we need it, but we trudge on.
When we talk about the government setting the bar as an employer, that is right down to hygiene. As of December 15, all federally regulated employers must provide free menstrual products in the workplace. It's common sense. Workplaces provide toilet paper, soap and hand sanitizer, and it's past time we did that with menstrual products too.
Setting the bar means admitting when things aren't perfect. We have not reached pay equity in the federal sectors, but to close the gaps, we need to know where the gaps are. Last Friday we launched Equi'Vision, an online, first-of-its-kind pay transparency website. You can see—by industry and minority—rates of pay, and you can compare them.
[Translation]
As Minister of Seniors, I am responsible for ensuring that seniors can age with dignity.
[English]
That comes down to choice, affordability and community.
Last year, my predecessor and the former minister of health announced that the National Seniors Council would serve as an expert panel to examine measures, including a potential aging-at-home benefit. The panel has completed its work, and we are currently reviewing the findings.
We developed a federal policy definition of mistreatment of older persons. This is important for a culture change in public awareness regarding this important issue, although the federal policy definition will not replace jurisdictional definitions and will not be included in any Criminal Code amendments.
[Translation]
We need to do a lot more for seniors. That's the least we can do.
[English]
Finally, I'm working with my colleague, the honourable , to develop a safe long-term care act to help ensure that Canadians get the care they deserve, while still respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
I'm also very concerned with defending and preserving the Canada pension plan. There is no one more dependent on our social security systems than seniors, and they deserve a government that is proud of the systems we have in Canada: GIS, OAS, CPP, universal health care and dental care. We are committed to protecting them.
[Translation]
Thank you.
I look forward to taking your questions.
:
Mr. Van Bynen, I'll give you 10 points for consistency, because I don't think you said, “Merry Christmas” to me but you do ask, “How are NORCs?” every time we bump into each other. That's a blatant exaggeration, but this is something I know you're very passionate about.
The comments that I made about dignity directly tie into that. Seniors need to be able to age in their communities where they can. Until I became Minister for Seniors, I must admit that I hadn't heard of NORCs, but thanks to your lobbying and also hearing about them through officials, now I know. These are naturally occurring retirement communities. They do incredible work, and they don't have that clinical feel that you feel in many retirement communities, which is like you're in some sort of semi-hospital.
These are places where people live. They feel like homes, and the great thing about programs like New Horizons for Seniors or the age well at home program is that they create opportunities for these innovative approaches like NORCs that allow people to age with dignity.
Specifically on the age well at home program, we invested $1.8 million to scale up Queen's University's Oasis NORC-based program. Oasis meets seniors where they are. It helps to prevent social isolation, which is a big thing. It helps promote physical fitness and injury prevention, and it facilitates better nutrition for seniors. It's expanding now to 12 locations across Canada. It's an excellent example of how we're moving on with this.
Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you, Ministers, for coming.
My beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay is a strong union riding, very proud of its union heritage, whether they are Saint John firefighters local 771, the Saint John police force union, CUPE local 18 for outside workers or ILA longshoremen's union local 273. The list goes on and on.
One of the first things I heard in 2015, not really knowing that much, was about Bill and Bill. It was like, “If you guys get in, you have to repeal Bill 377 and Bill 525.” I did some research. It was the Conservatives. They were basically union-busting bills that made it very difficult for unions to certify, and every union that I came across was against them.
I know that the Conservatives at times like to paint themselves as friends of unions. I would say that it's the exact oppositive. Unions built the middle class, with five-day work weeks, eight-hour days and safe work environments.
We've done a lot of great things for unions. As you said, Minister, we've banned replacement workers.
I am going to put a motion on notice to study how unions deliver powerful paycheques, better benefits and safer workplaces for all Canadians. I'll be moving that motion very soon and I hope to have support from everybody around this table.
Minister, if you can, I'd like you to share your efforts with respect to being Minister of Labour in delivering for Canadian workers and for unions.
Thank you.
I know Bill and Bill caused a lot of damage in the relationship between the federal government and working men and women across the country. They were undermining unions and making it difficult for them to form and forcing them to show their cards financially at a pivotal time at a negotiating table. Anyway, we ripped them up.
I look to Mr. Aitchison, because when we were working on 10 paid days of sick leave, we got unanimous consent. I think things have changed demonstrably in this country. I think we have a significant labour shortage and I think all parties recognize this, but we have gone the extra mile for workers because we sit down and we listen to them. We listen to what they have to say. We have a union-led advisory table, for instance, that is coming up consistently with good ideas, and they are the ones who know their membership.
A lot of the membership have significant concerns right now about artificial intelligence and about automation, but one thing they have asked for since before Canada even became a country was a ban on replacement workers, for anti-scab legislation, and we're going to deliver on that. I have sat down at very difficult negotiations with employers and with unions trying to sort out the best way to do it. We feel we've landed on it and we will be making the case to the House. I'm looking forward to support from all members, hopefully, as we had before.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, ministers. Thank you very much for being here. I'm sorry I have to participate in the meeting by video conference for health reasons. I still want to welcome you.
Mr. O'Regan, I would like to talk to you about Bill , which concerns replacement workers and is known as the anti-scab legislation. You actually talked about it. You said, rightly so, that the fact that the federal government is still allowing the use of strikebreakers in 2024 is disrupting working conditions and labour relations. In fact, we have a flagrant example in Quebec: Longshore workers at the Port of Québec affiliated with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out for 500 days. For 500 days now, the employer has been using strikebreakers with impunity. This puts workers in an extremely difficult financial situation. It also takes away their ability to negotiate their employment contract in good faith, since the employer has the upper hand.
When you introduced this bill last November, it was welcomed by everyone—both the unions and the Bloc Québécois. In fact, since 1990, the Bloc Québécois has introduced 11 bills on this issue.
This bill was introduced as a result of a joint agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but it still has to be passed so that it becomes law and so that the use of replacement workers is banned once and for all. The unions are calling for the bill to be passed more quickly. Will you commit to speeding up the process to ensure that the legislation sees the light of day in this Parliament?
:
The lockout at the Port of Québec shows why legislation banning replacement workers is needed. With all-party support, we can do that.
We support the parties in the negotiations; we're there to help.
[English]
As we speak, workers in the port of Quebec are on the front lines of this issue. They have been replaced. As Lana Payne said yesterday in a statement that was in the media today, there's nothing more demeaning for a worker than to be on strike or locked out while knowing that your work has been replaced.
They have been on the picket line for over a year. Their every day is ongoing proof of why we need to pass legislation in order to ban replacement workers. I think with the support of all parties in this House, we could prevent this from happening again.
We need time; the experts need time.
[English]
Our federal mediation and conciliation organizations are some of the best. I would argue that one of the best in the world is the FMCS, the federal mediation and conciliation service.
We also have the Canada industrial review board. These are the people who ultimately help parties negotiate an agreement or help them achieve one. We have a 96% success rate in this country. It is astounding. These are the best.
I've had the pleasure of meeting so many good public servants. This team is so effective. They've said to us that they need 18 months, for exactly the reason that we've just said. This is one of the most transformational changes to happen to labour relations in Canada in our history. It is precisely when people say that and then say “Well, can you rush it?” One answers the other. The reason we can't rush it is that it is so big. When the people who are at the table and are achieving the deals consistently, 96% of the time, say to me, “We need 18 months”, I listen to them. We are taking our time to make sure that we get this right.
Madame Chabot is absolutely right: There is a time when you pass it and there is the time that it goes into effect, but we need not only to make sure the people are properly trained for what would be a different negotiating environment: We're going to need more people. We're going to need more people to make sure that the supply chains in this country are protected and that workers' rights are protected. That takes good people, smart people, who are trained very well.
Welcome to the committee, Minister. It's nice to see you for the first time at committee, Mr. Beech.
I wanted to talk a bit about the service delivery excellence that you speak about. I raised this with you initially in terms of my concern about the CRA's capacity to reach people with disabilities who are living in poverty and to get them the Canada disability benefit when it becomes available.
My concern was realized when I received a response back on an Order Paper question that was asking the CRA to give me the information on the cross-reference between disability tax certificates and income. This is relating to the disability tax credit. What came back was this answer:
The one-to-one relationship between claimants and certificate holders is difficult to ascertain, with the possibility of more than one individual being a claimant on the same certificate. For this reason, CRA is unable to provide the income breakdowns of certificate holders (the beneficiaries) and is not in a position to respond in the manner requested.
My question is for you, Mr. Minister. How will the government ensure that those living in poverty who need the Canada disability benefit will get it, and does the government accept that the disability tax credit system cannot be the only entry point for the disability benefit?
:
First of all, thank you for the question.
Although this is my first time appearing at committee as a minister, I certainly lived at committee for the last number of years.
First of all, I'd like to express, given the conversations we've had, how important the Canada disability benefit is. I recently met with my equivalent minister in Australia, a country that went through this and basically transformed their own system a number of years ago. The impact that's had on their citizens has been dramatic.
Part of the reason that we are embarking on the modernization of our benefit delivery systems is that we are dealing with old technologies that in a lot of cases. It's 60 years old for OAS, 50 years old for EI and 25 years old for CPP. Also, siloed departments don't necessarily speak to each other.
In order to tackle the problem that you're specifically talking about, we need to empower the de-siloization of departments so that we can actually have them share information among each other in a secure way and have the flexibility to make sure the policies that elected members of Parliament want to implement are actually implementable once that policy hits the ground.
The kinds of frustration that you talk about, especially if they affect vulnerable Canadians, disabled Canadians, are completely unacceptable. Sadly, we're in a position of making up for generations of technical neglect all at once, but I am certain that, working together, we're going to be able to overcome that and provide a benefits system that delivers to everybody who needs it.
I'm going to move to Minister O'Regan.
We have also spoken about the care economy, I know, and I appreciate your reaching out to me in some of your busiest times to talk about this.
However, as we look at the seniors portfolio specifically and as we talk about long-term care, nursing, personal care aids, home care aids, and even federal nurses—we have a whole health care division federally—I want to know about collecting data.
When we were doing the care economy study a couple of years back, there was a real lack of pan-Canadian data to do HR planning in this space. Has there been any movement on being able to gather data on these workers in the care economy?
I think it's gendered, in that it wasn't something that was focused on, so data wasn't gathered. I really appreciate the movement on that.
I have one other question, but I'm going to wait until my next round. It has to do with the dental care for seniors. However, I do want to thank you for the menstrual products. That's very, very exciting around equity, and it certainly is something that they care about in Port Moody—Coquitlam, in Anmore and Belcarra. Thank you so much for that.
:
Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.
Now we'll go on to the next round, and I will lead this one off as well.
At the public accounts committee on December 14, which I did attend, I asked officials for the metrics and scoring criteria used to determine contracts. In that discussion, an official at the meeting stated that “the commercial confidence of which suppliers won and didn't win may be more commercially confidential.” I was asking what the metrics and scoring criteria were, and that seems very subjective.
This is for you, Minister Beech.
You referred to the competitive process. One of your officials at that same meeting confirmed that the amount was $40,000 in order to trigger a competitive process. Your department provided a document that I requested when I was questioning them. Going through it, I saw that there were numerous anomalies listed over $40,000 and called “Non-Competitive”, “Sole Source” or “Competitive” or “Selective Tendering”.
Minister, can you explain these anomalies?
Minister, this is in a document that was provided to that committee. It is a quite detailed document. There are numerous ones in there. I'm just surprised that you're not familiar with it. However, I will move on.
When we're looking at the benefits delivery modernization programme, we see that this is on track to be billions of dollars over budget. You already admitted that you weren't aware that contracts were potentially not following procurement rules. There are IT middlemen with ArriveCAN, so there's real concern that this could potentially be happening again.
Are you concerned about this, and would you welcome a review by the procurement ombudsman, Minister?
Welcome, ministers and guests.
Minister Beech, can I start with you?
I have a quick question about the “digital first” initiative. You're charged with the responsibility of changing government services and making them more efficient and more accessible to our constituents. My kids have grown up with a phone in their hand. They do all of their shopping and banking online, and their entertainment's online. They expect innovation, certainly. They're the young voters of today. We have a bigger crowd, of course, that expects the same.
At the other end of the spectrum is my 91-year-old mother-in-law, who is used to dealing with brick-and-mortar facilities. She doesn't own a phone. She's not online. As part of that, her daily routines are social events for her. With English as her second language, it's very important for her to deal with whoever she's dealing with face to face because of some of those communication issues.
How do you balance that? You've emphasized today, and outside of this committee room, the government's quest to make those government services much easier for our constituents to access. That means pushing things online. However, we also have a big constituency. A lot of my seniors in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek still want that brick-and-mortar facility. They still want that personal interaction.
Can you advise us in terms of how we balance the needs of those two distinct constituencies?
:
I think that's a very fair question.
I'd start by highlighting that “digital first” does not mean “digital only”. This is the provision of a new service that for a lot of people is a lot more convenient and cheaper. It saves them time and energy. Frankly, I think millions of Canadians would like to utilize those services.
However, if you look at something like the rollout of the enrolment program for dental care, we know that, especially for the oldest seniors in Canada, the preferred method for enrolling into the program was via telephone. We made that service available.
One of the best ways to articulate how good this service will be—whether it will be for a relative of yours or for any seniors that we represent—would be that the ability to provide these services online actually takes a person out of line for the other channels that are being utilized. A lot of people in those lines at a Service Canada centre don't want to be there. They would have much rather done it at three o'clock in the morning at their home, or after work or in the morning. They don't want to take time off work. They don't want to have to find child care or pay for parking.
When it comes to even the telephone program, I think there are opportunities that we should be looking at that are becoming available in the private sector, especially with regard to technology. For example, for any of the millions of Canadians who have waited on hold on the line, you've memorized the music. Having the ability to be called back so you can go about your day is useful.
I also think it's interesting that there are new AI services that actually interrupt the conversation to say, “Hey, somebody is several minutes away, but I can handle 80% of inquiries. Would you like to try me?” That's another way that we can get more people out of line.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister O'Regan, as you said, you are also the Minister of Seniors. In your presentation, you talked about the importance you attach to the principle of aging with dignity, and we fully agree with that. However, your government made a decision concerning seniors in 2022 by giving a 10% increase in old age security only to seniors aged 75 and over.
This week, we are going to start studying Bill , sponsored by the member for , meant to address this inequity and to grant a 10% increase in old age security to seniors starting at age 65, which is the age of eligibility for this program.
Will your government support that bill?
:
I stand by the decision that we made on seniors 75 and older, because I think older seniors are more financially challenged. They are more worried about outliving their savings, and as they age, seniors face more health issues. Their health care expenses rise due to illness or disability. In fact, on average, the out-of-pocket health expenses of those aged 80 and over are over $700 a year higher than for those aged 65 to 74.
At the same time, most older seniors can no longer supplement their income with paid work, with few seniors working beyond 75. Passing spouses adds to that pressure. Among seniors, almost twice as many over the age of 75 are likely to be widows or widowers. With women living longer on average than men, it's no wonder that many senior women slip into poverty after losing their life partners.
I think our OAS increase, as we have done it, has strengthened the financial security, I'm told, of 3.3 million seniors, the majority of whom are women. sncmfnrht
Minister O'Regan, thank you for your comments around women and gender. This is an area of work that hasn't been covered equitably since the beginning of recognizing work and EI.
I was actually going to ask you a question about dental care, but it probably should go to Minister Beech.
I understand that Service Canada is visiting seniors homes across Canada in connection with the implementation of the dental program that the NDP spearheaded.
Can you share the rollout plan? Will Service Canada be visiting long-term care homes and seniors homes in the riding I represent, Port Moody—Coquitlam?
We're just about at time here. We did start a little bit late because of votes.
I want to thank everyone for being here. Minister Beech, it's the first time that you've been to this committee. I'm taking the chair's prerogative right now to make a statement. We do have a lot of work at this committee that's within your portfolio, so hopefully we can see you again soon. I hope you'll make that commitment.
You had also requested to me to see the documents I was referring to. I will forward to you the documents that came directly from your department. I am disappointed that some of these issues weren't being addressed as seriously as they could have been. Hopefully we'll see you again soon and we can question you further on this.
We have another part of this meeting, so we'll suspend for a few minutes while we prepare for the second panel of witnesses today.
Thank you so much, everyone.
:
I call the meeting to order.
Pursuant to the motion adopted on November 8, 2023, the committee is hearing from Air Canada on services offered to travellers with disabilities.
Present for the meeting, all by video conference, are witnesses from Air Canada. We have Michael Rousseau, president and chief executive officer; David Rheault, vice-president, government and community relations; Tom Stevens, vice-president, customer experience and operations strategy; and Kerianne Wilson, director, customer accessibility.
Mr. Rousseau, you have five minutes to make an opening statement.
[Translation]
Thank you and good afternoon.
[English]
Let me assure the committee, people with disabilities, and the Canadian public that Air Canada takes very seriously its obligations to ensure our services are accessible. Equally important to us is that our objective is to be the preferred airline for people with disabilities.
[Translation]
We are already investing significant resources in accessibility, but we will do better.
[English]
Each year Air Canada successfully carries hundreds of thousands of customers who require mobility assistance or other accommodation. We invest significant resources in accessibility. We have been, and will continue to be, a leader. We were a key participant in drafting the CTA's “Mobility Aids and Air Travel Final Report”. Air Canada was one of the first airlines to waive liability limits in international treaties to pay the full cost for damaged mobility equipment.
I sit on the board of the International Air Transport Association, which represents 250 airlines worldwide. Air Canada was a key member of this Mobility Aids Action Group.
In 2023, across our network we had nearly 1.3 million special assistance requests related to accessibility for more than 500,000 customers. The vast majority had a positive experience; however, we know we must get better to reach our goal of offering a positive and respectful experience to all passengers. To this end, we endorse the Accessible Canada Act and its goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040.
As part of this, we publicly filed a three-year accessibility plan, with far-ranging initiatives. It includes 144 initiatives based on a year of research, extra consultations and feedback from travellers with disabilities, who took over 220 flights. Recent announcements, such as becoming the first North American carrier to join the global Sunflower program for non-visible disabilities and the creation of a customer advisory committee composed of representatives from four Canadian accessibility groups, are examples of the initiatives we are executing to improve.
People with disabilities make up a significant segment of our customer base. We are very proud of this. We have high awareness, a strong work ethic and deep empathy among our employees and contractors. Our processes generally work well. Hundreds of thousands of customers requiring assistance successfully travel each year. Still, despite this, accessibility issues, while remaining the exception, do arise, and we understand the impact in terms of how difficult the disruption is for our customers with disabilities.
While the causes behind these negative experiences differ, we have concluded the chief issue is inconsistency. The best remedy for this is to provide our people, who all want to do a good job serving customers, with more and better tailored training and tools so they can succeed every time.
Our November announcement about improving accessibility contained programs to achieve this greater consistency. For example, our 10,000 airport employees will receive extra disability-related instruction as part of a new, recurrent annual training program. Apart from reinforcing processes, it will promote better understanding.
It is a challenge; however, a good parallel is airline safety. Instances still occur, but aviation today is the safest mode of travel. This was achieved through our industry's willingness to examine and learn from mistakes, constantly refine processes, adopt new technology or add redundancy, and provide continual and better training.
We are well aware of the disruptions customers with disabilities can experience. When we fail, we are incredibly disappointed, because it affects a person's quality of life. In these cases we apologize and take responsibility. However, what we hear is that our customers' overriding concern is always that we act to make sure whatever happened to them does not happen to others. This is why our leadership team, and all employees at Air Canada, are committed to improve. We are striving every day to deliver a positive experience for every customer.
[Translation]
We are now available to answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.
The first rounds of questions are six minutes. I will be leading us off on behalf of the Conservatives.
First of all, I want to start by saying that the treatment that many persons with disabilities have had from Air Canada has been shocking to hear and completely unacceptable. We've heard of horrible situations of mistreatment reported by persons with disabilities. These are experiences they've had with Air Canada, including recently, from October to November of 2023 alone.
There have been headlines about an Air Canada passenger who had a lift fall on her head and her ventilator was disconnected. Air Canada left Canada's own chief accessibility officer's wheelchair behind on a cross-Canada flight. A passenger was forced to drag himself off of an Air Canada flight, and a man was dropped and injured when Air Canada staff didn't use a lift as requested.
Can you confirm that these are the types of situations that persons with disabilities are experiencing at Air Canada, Mr. Rousseau?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It's a real privilege to be here at HUMA. I've never appeared at this committee before, but I thank the members of this committee and the chair for allowing me to be here on behalf of one of my constituents.
Mr. Rousseau, thank you for joining this committee today. As CEO of Air Canada, it's your responsibility to be accountable for Air Canada's failings as a company.
Today I'm going to refer to a CBC article about the father of one of my constituents. He was an 83-year-old man who, while on board a transatlantic flight, “developed severe medical symptoms”, including “chest pain, back pain, vomiting, loss of bowel control and the inability to stand up.”
I'll acknowledge that this meeting today concerns how those who are disabled are treated on your airline, but given this man's age and his condition, I think it is pertinent. I've had conversations with this man's family, as they're my constituents, and I can tell you that they continue to be in a deep state of trauma after what they experienced.
I believe that you're probably familiar with this case. I'm referring to a flight that left Delhi in the late summer of 2023 as Flight AC51. While over Europe, my constituent's father experienced a severe medical event that has been referred to by some physicians who have been consulted following this tragedy as one that warranted landing early or turning around. They would have expected the Medair consultants who were contacted to have made that recommendation.
My constituent tried to make this situation abundantly clear to the inflight staff on board. They asked for a physician. That wasn't provided, or nobody came forward. Unfortunately, my constituent's father passed away shortly after the flight landed in Montreal. I'll say on their behalf that they have not felt adequately reassured that anything has changed at Air Canada since this or that Air Canada took all precautions necessary to keep this gentleman alive.
Mr. Rousseau, when Air Canada performs well financially as a company, you personally benefit as well. Your compensation more than tripled in 2022, to $12.4 million, compared to $3.7 million in 2021, according to documents released by the airline. The stock price reflects similar performance over that period of time. Do you feel that being called to this committee today, given that people experience things similar to what my constituent has experienced, is reflective of great performance by your airline?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Rousseau. I also thank all the other witnesses.
We all know what led to this motion. There was a very unfortunate, if not shocking, incident in Prince George where a disabled man in a wheelchair had to drag himself out of the plane owing to a lack of assistance. That is inexplicable and appalling.
We know that Air Canada sent a letter of apology, but beyond apologies, how can such a situation be justified?
In your opinion, is this an isolated case or are there other similar situations that occur and that should never happen again?
:
Thank you for your question.
[English]
I'm aware of that case of Mr. Hodgins, who was arriving in Las Vegas. Kerianne may provide more details a little bit later. We are very sorry for what happened. Our contractor in Las Vegas didn't show up to help Mr. Hodgins off the plane to his mobility aid. That is our responsibility. We have dealt with that third party.
To my point earlier, it was a mistake on our part. The training we're putting in place and all the different initiatives we're putting in place will hopefully reduce the number of these mistakes. Again, we did successfully help the majority of the 500,000 people who travelled on our planes last year who required assistance regarding disability.
Kerianne, do you have anything to offer on Mr. Hodgins?
:
Thank you again for the question.
[English]
A number of initiatives have been introduced in the last several months as part of our three-year plan. For example, customers with disabilities who require a lift are put on the plane first. In fact, we will delay a plane to ensure that they go on first before any other customer goes on.
Second, we try to put customers with disabilities at the front of each of the cabins they're sitting in, again for a greater degree of respect.
As for their mobility aids, which are obviously critical to them, we are putting as many as we can in the cabin. Obviously there are certain restrictions with regard to size, but we will put as many mobility aids in the cabin as we possibly can. If we can't put it in the cabin—for example, if it's too large—we'll put it in the cargo bay, but we have special procedures that we've put in place to ensure that it's protected. It's packaged differently and it will come off as a priority item, so it will come off first when the plane arrives.
More importantly, we have put a process in place so that if a mobility aid goes in the cargo bay, we will in fact ensure—double-check and triple-check—that it is in the cargo bay. There is an app that customers can access that shows them that to give them comfort that their mobility aid will be at the destination when they arrive.
In this last case, with regard to this process that we have just introduced to ensure that mobility aids are in fact in the cargo bay if they're too large to fit in the cabin, we will delay a plane until we are certain that the mobility aid is in fact in the cargo bay.
With regard to your point about training, we have always had training, but we've retained some expert consultants who have looked at our training and have enhanced our training. We will be putting in annual recurring training for our 10,000 airport employees, one segment on processes and a second one on attitude, to a great degree, which is also very important.
Mr. Rousseau, I want to understand the corporate culture that would allow for dehumanizing passengers and violating their human rights. I'm sure that you've heard that the corporate culture of an organization will eat any strategy for lunch. It's regular business jargon. That's why I wanted you to come to this committee: because I really want to understand the corporate culture, because any accessibility strategy, any accessibility plan, will not be successful if it's not important to you.
The PBO report on accessible transportation for persons with disabilities, published March 31, 2023, shared that only 31% of managers and executives completed their mandatory accessibility training.
Since Air Canada did not have to report in that study, I'm interested to know if you have taken any accessibility training yourself. I know that you referenced today some increased accessibility training for your staff, but have you taken any accessibility training yourself?
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Following up on MP Zarrillo's last comment, the request was given months ago for you to attend our committee. It's kind of ironic that all are virtual. I'm wondering if this speaks to a testament of Air Canada's service delivery and flight availability. It's unfortunate that we don't have you here, given the fact that this request was given so long ago.
As has been said, many news reports have emerged about the discrimination and the mistreatment experienced by persons with disabilities travelling by air. It's disheartening and truly unacceptable. Air travel should not be a demoralizing experience. I can only begin to imagine the hardship that individuals have experienced. Of course, these just are the experiences that attract news attention.
Mr. Rousseau, I will presume that you would agree that Air Canada still has a way to go to consistently meet its commitment to “offering a high level of customer service and providing a dignified, positive and safe flight experience for all passengers”.
Would it be your assessment, however, that Air Canada is in compliance with the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Transportation Act?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here today, to those from Air Canada who did eventually respond to the call initiated by our colleague Ms. Zarrillo, which was supported unanimously by this committee.
Sir, I've noticed, and it's no surprise.... Anybody who's a member of Parliament develops relationships with their constituents. Very profound relationships are those that exist with members of communities that advocate on behalf of those who are disabled.
In my community in London, Ontario, Jeff Preston is a professor of disability studies at the university. He and I have known each other for a number of years. I did reach out to him in advance of the meeting today to ask what he would want to come out of this meeting and if he wanted to say anything to you through my questions.
In December, Jeff travelled. His wheelchair was broken. He was in touch with Air Canada well before the flight to make sure that there would be an understanding at the arrival airport that there was a wheelchair on board, to make sure everything was smooth. Clearly, it was not.
His question, though, is not to delve too much into the unfortunate incident—which, by the way, took away from his Christmas because he had to resolve the matter with customer service instead of enjoying Christmas with his family. He wanted me to ask the following question:
A big part of the problem here isn't that Air Canada is missing important policies or procedures. It seems to be that none of these policies or procedures are being adequately downstreamed from corporate legal to the front line. How do you plan on actually fixing this problem, when obviously your current approach or methodology of training and communicating that through your system is an abject failure?
That's a direct quote from my constituent, Jeff Preston. What do you have to say to Mr. Preston?
By the way, I think his story is not unique.
I will end the question with this. I do notice, sir, that in your testimony you talked about the policies and procedures in place and how seriously you take all of this. I take you at your word on that. I'm not going to question that. However, it's clearly not finding effect. What is your plan for a substantive change going forward?
:
I'm sorry to hear that your constituent had a bad experience with us.
We do have policies and procedures. We do have training each year. I believe the vast majority of our people have empathy and understand the processes. I think that's evidenced by the fact that we do successfully move the vast majority of the 500,000 customers with disabilities that we carry on an annual basis.
As we've said, we do make mistakes, so we have to improve. The way we're going to improve is we're going to double down on training, to start with. Our 10,000 airport employees will receive an enhanced training program that's been put together with the help of disability experts to ensure, first, that processes are followed, and secondarily and equally as importantly, that there's a better understanding of the needs of a customer with a disability.
Just recently, we put in place the Sunflower program for customers with non-visible disabilities. We're the first airline in North America to do so. If the customer chooses to wear the sunflower lanyard, that will be an indication to our staff that this customer has a hidden disability and that they should therefore act accordingly.
I think those are all concrete steps forward to improve the situation. Again, it's all outlined in our three-year accessibility plan that we're currently executing to get better and to achieve what I said in my opening comments, which is to make every experience a positive experience.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I didn't have time to ask my questions earlier.
Mr. Rousseau, you said that you consulted a number of experts when developing the accessibility plan. But, in concrete terms, who is sitting at the table permanently? How do you ensure that you consult disability groups on a regular basis?
In your accessibility plan, you mentioned that you wanted to put these types of measures in place by 2023. Why wait? What has been done? In concrete terms, are there groups of people with disabilities who act permanently and regularly as advisors on your policy?
:
Thank you for your question.
[English]
We had experts consult with us in the year leading up to launching our accessibility plan in June 2023. It's a three-year plan.
Just last week, we informed the market that we've executed another step in one of our initiatives, which is the formation of an advisory group, represented by four leading disability advocacy groups. It will provide input to us on an ongoing basis on things we can change and things we can accelerate and a number of different initiatives.
I think we have a very strong plan, with 145 different initiatives. Several important ones have already been executed, but this advisory group is about continuous improvement. Kerianne will be working closely with it to provide input on our decisions and our priorities regarding this critically important area on a go-forward basis.