THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gignac: Good evening and welcome. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. I’m filling in for Senator Kingston.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec. I’m replacing Senator Galvez.
[English]
Senator Ross: Welcome. Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
I usually say “for our first panel,” but today it will be “for our first period.” We are pleased to welcome, from Canadian Heritage, Andrew Brown, Associate Deputy Minister, and Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs. From the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, we welcome Chuck Andary, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Legal Officer; and Joël Hupé, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer.
Your presentations will be followed by questions from the senators. We will begin with a short statement from Mr. Brown, followed by Mr. Andary.
[English]
Andrew Brown, Associate Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Thank you, chair. I’m pleased to be here with you all today. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered upon the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
I’m here with Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Cultural Affairs, and with other Canadian Heritage colleagues. We’re happy to share information about the 2026-27 Main Estimates for Canadian Heritage with you today.
Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations play a vital role in the cultural, civic and economic lives of Canadians. Our policies and programs promote an environment in which Canadians can experience diverse and dynamic cultural expressions, celebrate our history and build strong communities. The department invests in the future and builds a strong sense of Canadian identity and unity by supporting the things that define who we are as Canadians: our official and Indigenous languages; arts and culture; the sport system and our athletes; diversity, inclusion and anti-racism; and important heritage commemorations and celebrations.
Canadian Heritage received a total of $1.9 billion in the 2026-27 Main Estimates. That includes $1.6 billion in grants and contributions, $218.3 million in operating expenditures and $33.3 million in statutory items. This represents a net decrease of $237.9 million, or 11%, compared to the 2025-26 Main Estimates. A large part of this reduction is a matter of timing, where temporary funding, sunsetting at the end of 2025-26, was renewed in Budget 2025 and will be accessed in supplementary estimates later in this fiscal year. Other reductions result from savings measures announced in Budget 2023 and Budget 2025.
The department will use funding from the 2026-27 Main Estimates to fulfill its mandate and deliver on its core responsibilities: to build a stronger national identity and unity. This means supporting the promotion of Canada’s two official languages and the development of official-language-minority communities. Main Estimates funding of $620.9 million will support this core responsibility. It will allow us to, for example, finalize the implementation of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
It also means continuing to support an environment in which Canada’s arts and culture and our innovative creative industries can play their vital role vis-à-vis our identity and our sovereignty.
Main Estimates funding of $471.1 million will go toward programming in support of creativity, arts and culture. This will include continued engagement on artificial intelligence and culture, both at home and internationally. It will also include efforts to modernize federal support for the audiovisual sector and federal support for journalism to promote the diversity of our cultural expressions and to offer Canadians rich and diverse Canadian content across all platforms, including reliable local news. It means delivering on the department’s core responsibility for sports, which is so central to Canada’s identity and culture.
Funding of $311.6 million from the 2026-27 Main Estimates will support these efforts that include coordinating and supporting the hosting of the FIFA Men’s World Cup 2026 and promoting strong measures to support safe and welcoming sports experiences for all. This also includes engagement toward responding to recommendations in the final report of the Future of Sport in Canada Commission.
[Translation]
It means promoting diversity and inclusion. The 2026-27 Main Estimates provide $234.3 million to help support communities affected by racism, hate or any other form of discrimination and provide them with the resources they need to advance their economic, social, cultural and political equality. The funding will also help raise awareness of issues related to racism and hate in Canada and support work related to Indigenous languages and the work of the independent review of the Indigenous Languages Act.
Finally, it means supporting opportunities for Canadians to participate in celebrations and commemorations. Main Estimates funding of $124.2 million will help facilitate Canadians’ access to history and heritage including through the renewal of the Canada Strong Pass.
In addition to the 2026-27 Main Estimates, Budget 2025 announced investments of $328 million over four years for Canadian Heritage. This funding will be accessed via supplementary estimates this fiscal year and will further the department’s work to support Canada’s economic growth and leverage our sense of shared identity and social cohesion.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these Main Estimates. My colleagues and I look forward to any questions the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Chuck Andary, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Legal Officer, Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority: Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to discuss the Gordie Howe International Bridge project and the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, or WDBA.
This is my first appearance at this committee since I was appointed interim CEO of WDBA, the Crown corporation responsible for the delivery of the Gordie Howe International Bridge project. It is a privilege to be here in Ottawa to brief you on the new bridge and to provide an update on recent developments. Joining me here today is Joël Hupé, WDBA’s Chief Financial and Administrative Officer.
Before I go further in my opening statement, I want to acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded, traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
I will begin my remarks with some contextual information on the region where WDBA and the Gordie Howe International Bridge are based. The Windsor-Detroit Gateway is, traditionally, Canada’s busiest commercial land border crossing, facilitating the movement of people, goods and services between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority’s mandate is to design, build, operate and maintain the components and infrastructure of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, as well as to set and collect tolls. The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority is also responsible for managing the project agreement with our private sector partner, Bridging North America. The end result of these efforts is to maximize the safe and efficient movement of people and goods through the Canada-U.S. border between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan.
The Gordie Howe International Bridge aligns with government direction and goals and will play an essential role in Building Canada Strong. The new bridge will shorten travel times, meet current and future volume demands and provide crossing choice, creating a more predictable and secure trade environment that will encourage new investment and strengthen the supply chain.
Significant progress has been made on the project over the last few years. While an opening date has not yet been set for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, the project team is progressing well toward opening the bridge this spring. The exact opening date depends on the completion of our ongoing quality reviews, testing and commissioning activities to ensure safety and the seamless flow of traffic across the border.
With my time here today, I would also like to highlight that progress on the bridge is due to the continued hard work of our private sector partner, Bridging North America, our colleagues at Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, the Michigan Department of Transportation, on-site workers and our dedicated staff at WDBA.
The 2026-27 Main Estimates for WDBA are $223.2 million, representing a decrease of $119 million, or 35%, from the 2025-26 Main Estimates. When considering estimates to date, including Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2025-26, this represents a decrease of $226.9 million, or 50%.
The funding received in the Main Estimates ensures the transition from the design-build phase to the commencement of operating the Gordie Howe International Bridge. This funding will enable WDBA to continue fulfilling its mandate, meet its contractual obligations and deliver on the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Approximately $65.6 million, or 30%, is allocated to Bridging North America for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation payments. A further $113 million, approximately 51%, supports design-build closeout activities, while $43.9 million, or 19%, is allocated to corporate overhead and other operating costs.
Thank you. I look forward to answering questions you may have on WDBA’s Main Estimates and the Gordie Howe International Bridge project.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to the officials who are here today. We appreciate you taking the time to be with us to go over the estimates.
I have a few questions for Canadian Heritage around the issue of media support. You may know that at issue today is a report entitled Making News Media Sustainable: Options for the Long Term. I don’t know if I am allowed to hold up my report as a prop, but I would be happy to share it with you. I’ve been talking to your department about this while we’ve been developing it.
As you well know, support for media is absolutely crucial because, as advertising has drifted almost completely away from private sector media, support from your department is important.
What I’m seeing here in the estimates are, I think, two things. One is the Canadian Periodical Fund, and the other is support for the Local Journalism Initiative. Are either of you in a position to talk about these programs?
Mr. Brown: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I’ll turn to Joëlle Montminy for the response.
Joëlle Montminy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Canadian Heritage: Thank you for the question, and congratulations on the release of your report. I was just reading the highlights in the articles that have already been written, but I haven’t read your report. It’s 100 pages long, so we will definitely study it.
Senator Cardozo: It’s a good weekend read.
Ms. Montminy: We will do that.
From what I’ve seen, I think you have very interesting observations that we would share at Canadian Heritage. You highlight in your report the diagnostic of the media ecosystem — which is facing significant challenges at a time when the ecosystem has been changing, evolving and being challenged — and the importance of trust in the media. We definitely agree with that.
As you know, we do have a suite of support, direct support and indirect support. You mentioned the Canada Periodical Fund, which has been around for a long time, but there are also newer measures we’ve added over time. I’m sure you’re very familiar with the Local Journalism Initiative, the special measure for journalism that was added during COVID. Of course, we have the Online News Act, which has also been put in place, which offers the tax credits. The government yesterday announced the potential expansion of the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to broadcasters, not just print media.
We have a lot of support in place.
We recognize that this has been put in place over time to address different challenges that the media ecosystem is facing, but we recognize that some of these tools are working well, but they would deserve to be looked at again. That’s why we’ve launched a new consultation process.
Senator Cardozo: Sorry to interrupt, but we have a limited amount of time. But these two programs, the Canadian Periodical Fund and the Local Journalism Initiative, are carried out through your department. Could they work if they were in an arm’s‑length agency such as the Canada Media Fund? The main thing being the reality, the perception that the government does not have control over which journalists get or which journals get money?
Ms. Montminy: Thank you for the question. The Local Journalism Initiative is already delivered through a third party. The government has no say in determining who receives the funding. It has been that way since the program was created, so it’s completely outside of the government.
The Periodical Fund is delivered through a formula calculation. We only look at the eligibility of the news organization, and then it’s divided up by the number of eligible recipients. Again, the government has no direct involvement in funding particular content. There are just objective criteria.
The question is could it be delivered differently? Of course. This is something that through our recent consultations we will be looking into.
Senator Ross: My question is also for Mr. Brown. In your departmental plan for Canadian Heritage, it mentions that you will be continuing efforts to establish the host society for the 2029 Canada Summer Games in Moncton and Saint John regions. I’d like to know if you can tell me what those efforts include. Also, the planned results for sport in 2026-27 include advancing the new federal territorial Canadian Sport Policy 2025-2035. Can you tell me what that roll-out will look like as well?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for those questions, senator.
First off, your question about the 2029 Canada Summer Games in New Brunswick. I certainly think we look forward to continuing to work with the organizing committee for those Games. In some ways, there has been a period of shifting from St. John’s, which hosted the last Summer Games in August, as we move toward ultimately looking at the next Summer Games in Moncton and Saint John. That work is really to be able to put in place an agreement along with the host communities’ organizing committee. That’s an agreement that would be put in place along with the other parties as well that would be providing support to the hosting of those games.
That work is under way and continues in terms of the preparations for 2029. What’s coming up sooner than that for us, of course, will be the next edition of the Canada Winter Games, which will be in Quebec City in early 2027.
In terms of the other question, with respect to the Canadian Sport Policy, I think an important thing to recognize there is that is a policy that was put in place by the federal government along with all provincial and territorial governments and was the culmination of a number of years of effort and landed on what would be the priorities for the next 10 years. It’s a policy that spans from 2025 all the way until 2035 and has identified the real importance of ensuring that sport is safe and welcoming for participants, be those athletes, coaches or officials. These are some of the important elements of ensuring that there is a safe sports environment.
Another key piece of that work was the development of what is referred to as the priorities for collaborative action. Those have now been agreed among provinces and territories as well as the federal government, and the work is continuing to advance those priorities.
So two things I could say there. All of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport and recreation will be meeting next month, in about four weeks, to discuss some of the next steps, as well as to discuss the recommendations that came from the Future of Sport in Canada Commission. There is really a desire to take a look at how some of those recommendations might be addressed collectively and what some of the opportunities may be for that collective approach. Not just governments, but frankly, thinking about national sports organizations and national multiservice organizations, as we call them, in terms of building a safer and a stronger sports system.
I would say some elements still need to be confirmed and are pending further conversations with our provincial and territorial counterparts.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Welcome to all four of you. My question is for Canadian Heritage. First of all, congratulations; you publish your results transparently on GC InfoBase. That’s great. However, in the most recent publication available, I see that, of the 41 indicators, less than 40% have met their targets. I looked at all the previous periods going back to 2020. What is currently being published is one of the worst periods, since we see that that the number of targets not met even exceed the number of targets met.
I’ll let you comment on that, and then I have a question specifically about one of the indicators. What is being done to meet the targets? The next publication is still far away, but you must surely be following what is coming and anticipating . . . . Will we find ourselves in the same situation for the next publication? If so, what action plans are you implementing to successfully meet the targets?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for the question, senator. Obviously, the targets for our programs are really important. It’s something that’s regularly reported on, obviously.
[English]
The fact that we aren’t meeting some of those targets at the moment is something that is a concern. We certainly take a look at the performance of programs. It could be a number of programs that collectively contribute to particular targets and outcomes. We would certainly be interested in knowing specifically about those that you would like to hear more about.
However, we are regularly reviewing our performance and looking at ways to improve our programs and to improve our outcomes.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Can you tell us more about the targets achieved? One thing that’s concerning, if I take the example of human rights, particularly with respect to compliance with the Official Languages Act, is that one might wonder whether you enforce it.
There’s a target that doesn’t seem so complicated to achieve on the number of human rights posts that need to be made on your website, and yet that target is not being met. What are the reasons for that? I would especially like to hear you talk about the action plans you are implementing. I understand your answer, Mr. Brown, about the importance of targets and indicators, and I think that’s the case for everyone.
Exactly what action are you taking to help meet your targets?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for the question, senator. I will turn it over to my colleague Vincent Ngan, Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for results.
Vincent Ngan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Departmental Affairs, Canadian Heritage: Good evening. I’m Vincent Ngan, Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for data at the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Of the 79 indicators we have, 29 targets were met in 2024 and 2025.
In 2023, unfortunately, it was harder to meet targets. There are 10 indicators that are not available at the moment, because some data are not collected on an annual basis. Some data are collected through surveys, not necessarily in an —
Senator Oudar: You can tell us about the 23 unmet targets only.
Mr. Ngan: Yes, okay. To answer your question about compliance with the Official Languages Act, there are indicators available.
[English]
For example, maintenance of the percentage of official-language-minority communities that lived within a 25-kilometre radius on a regional or local community — development organization that offers services in minority languages. The target was at least 85%, and we have achieved 86.4%.
There are very good indicators to know where we are on track. A case in point: There are some indicators that we might not have met but that are very close. For instance, the maintenance of the percentage of official-language-minority communities that live within a 25-kilometre radius of a cultural and artistic organization that offers services in a minority language — our target was 85%, but we achieved 84.8%. We missed it by 0.2%.
There are some areas that were very close, but we are still missing.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Ngan, I have to stop you there because we have to give equal time to each senator.
Senator Hébert: My question is for Canadian Heritage. I apologize if I didn’t catch everything you said during your presentation.
Regarding grants to the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program, I note that there was $11.6 million in 2025-26 and that it drops to $7 million in 2026-27. When I see that the contribution to the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program is going from $25.7 million in 2025-26 to $7 million in 2026-27, I see that adds up to $18 million less.
There is probably a good explanation. Could you tell us in more detail why multiculturalism and anti-racism grants are subject to such significant variations?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for the question. Obviously, multiculturalism and combatting racism remain very important for the Department of Canadian Heritage. You mentioned the decrease in funding for this program, and the reason for that is very important: There was temporary funding that ended at the close of the fiscal year.
Yesterday, in the economic update, it was announced that funding for this Canadian Heritage program was renewed for two years.
Senator Hébert: When you say “this program,” do you mean the $25-million grant to the multiculturalism program or the $7‑million grant to the multiculturalism program?
Mr. Brown: What was announced was a $66-million grant over two years to the Multiculturalism Program, specifically to continue fighting racism. That’s what was announced yesterday. The department will have to seek those funds through the supplementary estimates.
Senator Hébert: Another thing that struck me is that I don’t know if there was a sunset clause, but it’s the Canada Arts Presentation Fund, which is going from $16.5 million to $1 million. That’s a big drop. Is it the same dynamic as what you just explained to us, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’ll turn it over to Joëlle Montminy for the answer.
Ms. Montminy: [Technical difficulties] that have since been renewed.
Senator Hébert: At the same level?
Ms. Montminy: Yes.
Senator Hébert: So at the same level as in 2024-25 or 2025-26?
Ms. Montminy: From 2025-26, for a three-year period.
Senator Hébert: When we talk about presenting the arts, what exactly does that fund? Can you give us a couple of examples?
Ms. Montminy: The Canada Arts Presentation Fund funds performance presenters and the shows themselves. We have about 800 clients. This is a program that’s been around for a very long time at the department. It funds major events that include performances by professional artists. So it’s a foot in the door.
Senator Hébert: Like the Jazz Festival, for example? Would it be that kind of event?
Ms. Montminy: There you go.
Senator Hébert: That’s what I figured. Thank you very much.
Senator Youance: My question is for the representatives of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority. One objective set out in the government’s plan is for the Government of Canada to recoup its overall investment in carrying out the project. According to your projections, when will toll revenues cover operating costs, given the risk of reduced border traffic?
How do you plan to reconcile the government’s objective of recovering its investment with the objective of maintaining fair rates and not increasing rates with the lower traffic?
[English]
Mr. Andary: Thank you for the question.
Canada’s investment in the Gordie Howe International Bridge will be recovered, primarily, through tolls paid by users of the bridge as part of a long-term revenue model. This project is designed as a generational infrastructure investment that transforms how people and goods move across North America, and it supports future economic growth. While the timeline for recoupment may fluctuate, what is important is the long-term value of the Gordie Howe International Bridge: It provides a critical highway-to-highway link and vital redundancy for the Windsor-Detroit corridor.
Once we are operational, we will have a better understanding of traffic volumes and market share to help us deliver a more reliable estimate. This approach allows the bridge to deliver immediate economic benefits while ensuring that Canada’s investment is repaid responsibly over time.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: The bridge will open in the spring, so how will the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority operationalize the transition to the new operation phase of the bridge in terms of governance mechanisms, key responsibilities and putting in place effective, financially viable management over the long term?
[English]
Mr. Andary: Thank you. That’s a great question.
We will be transitioning into an operating organization while minor deficiency work is still ongoing in the design-build phase of the project. The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority operates under a board of directors, with committees that are geared toward the design-build phase of the project, operations and marketing, and governance and human resources. We continue to operate under that structure with our board of directors.
The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority is also transitioning its own workforce into an operating workforce. We anticipate that, over the next five years — or at least until we get to steady-state operations — we will experience a reduction in staffing to accommodate the operational organization, which necessitates a smaller organization.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. My question is for Canadian Heritage. Watching the Winter Olympics, we were proud of our athletes, but we found it a little more embarrassing when we learned how much money a gold medallist might receive in Canada as opposed to another country. In Canada, it’s $20,000; in the United States, it’s $50,000; in France, it’s $130,000; and in Italy, it’s $290,000.
I understood yesterday that Canadian Heritage will receive an additional $750 million over five years. That will include $9 million per year for elite athletes. Who decides that? It’s not in the Main Estimates, but since you’re here today and it was announced yesterday, is there a desire to treat our elite athletes more appropriately compared to what we see internationally?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for the question. Obviously, the Olympics were an opportunity to unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In terms of what Canadian athletes who win medals might receive as a bonus, the funds are provided by the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee. They do it with the help of sponsors; it doesn’t come from us.
The investment in the statement is really about supporting the sport system and making it safer. That was a really crucial thing that the Commission on the Future of Sport in Canada highlighted in its report. We want to ensure that sport is more accessible. We’ve often heard that Canadians, especially young people, can’t afford to play sports. Therefore, we want to work with stakeholders in the sport system, but especially with national sport organizations, to make sport more affordable.
Senator Gignac: Politically speaking, no minister will ever make a move on this. Canada is part of the G7, and the Prime Minister is usually proud to talk about performance, make comparisons, and so on. However, when it comes to the Olympics, nothing ever happens at the political level. As for the amount of money awarded, I take it the commission will continue to decide how much we give our Olympic medallists?
Is there no guidance on that; can’t something be done? I heard Laurent Dubreuil say something rather embarrassing about this: “When you come back, you’re left high and dry.”
Mr. Brown: First, I would say that Sport Canada supports national organizations in the sports community. There may be a desire to see a little more focus on those organizations with new investments —
[English]
— to really place an emphasis on participation, in particular — I think to drive greater participation of Canadians in sport and, through that, also to help in terms of high-performance sport.
[Translation]
There was also an aspect about athletes, but it’s not a bonus for medallists. The existing program is the Athlete Assistance Program, which simply aims to help them with the costs associated with training.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: I will follow up on Senator Youance’s questions about the bridge.
The construction will be terminated very soon, subject to the completion of the deficiencies, but that will not prevent the use of the bridge. You are going to go to operation, but last time I think we met, there was important litigation pending. Do we still have litigation pending, or is this over?
Mr. Andary: Currently, senator, we do not have litigation.
Senator Dalphond: There was a process that was engaged with some of the contractors. Is that all solved?
Mr. Andary: Yes. I believe that, last time, we had been engaged in a primarily COVID-related dispute. That’s been handled through our dispute-resolution mechanism, ultimately resulting in a settlement between WDBA and the private partner.
Senator Dalphond: — in the 2024-25 budget? Okay. It is no longer there; it is gone.
To follow up on the question of Senator Youance — and I have the same questions. You had forecasts done. Are you revising your forecasts in terms of what will be paid and fares, considering that the traffic, perhaps, will be not as important as was initially estimated? For example, the Chrysler plant in Ontario was shut down, so I’m sure they do not send parts to the U.S. anymore. Is that affecting your plan? Are you revising your plan?
Mr. Andary: Thank you for the question, senator. At this time, we forecast regularly, but the numbers vary month‑to‑month in terms of overall border traffic.
Right now there isn’t a lot of confidence in anything definitive until we actually see live traffic data at our bridge, including overall traffic and specifically market share, which very soon we’ll be able to begin to assess and forecast out over the coming years.
Senator Dalphond: For example, we know Canadians are travelling far less than before to the U.S., including by road. We saw that at all of the Canadian customs and border crossings. So you’re not revising based on the number of cars that will cross the bridge?
Mr. Andary: We are constantly looking at the numbers of cars and then —
Senator Dalphond: You’re looking, but are you revising your forecast?
Mr. Andary: Yes, we are revising our forecast, but a number of inputs go into that, including overall traffic and various levels of expected market share.
Senator Dalphond: Looking at the best scenario, worst and middle scenario, you were supposed to be making your costs five years from now. Are you still thinking that within five years you’re going to meet your target or it’s going to be 7 or 10 years now?
Mr. Andary: For that I turn to Joël Hupé.
[Translation]
Joël Hupé, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority: You want to know if we will cover our costs within five years?
Senator Dalphond: You have quarterly plans that anticipated you covering your costs. Are you on track? Don’t you need to revise the six-month plans — I’m not the one managing the bridge.
Mr. Hupé: Yes, we do need to do that.
Senator Dalphond: You’ve budgeted an additional $15 million in 2026-27, so that won’t happen.
Mr. Hupé: Yes, it will. Our adjustments always show that we’ll be able to recover our expenses within three years. Our forecasts say the same thing. We regularly review our projections. We look at different scenarios, traffic volumes, costs, rates and everything that goes into our assessment.
Senator Dalphond: For the time being, you remain confident that you will meet your forecasts?
Mr. Hupé: Absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: I’m glad to see that you’re optimistic. Thank you.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Canadian Heritage. In the estimates, I see you have grants to the Athletes Assistance Program and contributions to the Sport Support Program. I was pleased to see, in the Spring Economic Update 2026, there is an announcement about $755 million to be funded over five years, starting in 2026-27, to support athletes and sports.
Could you talk a little bit about that in terms of further details with regard to how much would be direct assistance to athletes versus infrastructure and facilities for communities; how might that funding flow to the communities? Are there new programs? How much of that will be flowed through the existing programs that you have in the Main Estimates that are outlined here today?
Mr. Brown: Thank you for the question, senator. It was incredible to receive that announcement yesterday of such an investment in Canada’s sports system. It really represents a generational investment.
The details, of course, are still to be worked out, but in terms of the high level, we understand that there will be some portion of those funds, which will be directed to what we call sport event hosting in Canada. This is to help communities through national sport organizations to host an international sporting event. Those offer opportunities to Canadian athletes to gain some international experience competing right here at home in Canada and really contribute to community building through the volunteers who are involved. It can help in terms of economic development in terms of visitors who are coming into those communities at that time. A certain portion will go to sport event hosting.
Another portion is expected to be for the Athlete Assistance Program, a relatively small amount just to be aware in terms of the annual budget for the Athlete Assistance Program. It’s about $40 million, and that supports roughly 1,900 high-performance athletes across the country. It’s not a huge program. It is paying some basic living expenses, up to just over $2,000 per month that they receive through that.
The funds that go to expanding that program will probably allow for additional athletes to be covered, especially as we anticipate the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. There are new sports that are being recognized by the Olympics and Paralympics and this will help to manage that.
The bulk of the funding is expected to be the Sport Support Program, and that is used to support national sport organizations — so think Skate Canada, Hockey Canada, et cetera. But it is also supporting what we call the national multisport service organizations. It’s the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, some support that goes to them. It’s also the Coaching Association of Canada. It’s our Sport Information Resource Centre, and, most importantly, it’s Sport Integrity Canada that administers the Canadian Safe Sport Program.
So it is going to support that suite of organizations. Details, in terms of how exactly that funding will be administered, are still to follow at this time.
Senator MacAdam: In the economic statement, it talked about new facilities and upgrading facilities. I’m thinking of communities across Canada with young athletes and not enough training facilities. To what extent would infrastructure be included?
Mr. Brown: In terms of infrastructure, there is a small amount of infrastructure that could be supported through this program, and that’s through the International Single Sport Events — Hosting Program that I mentioned earlier. It does allow communities to build. In most cases, it’s to renovate and upgrade existing facilities to be able to host international sporting events.
In terms of major infrastructure investments, that continue to be handled by Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. There has already been outreach. This is through the funds announced in Budget 2025 and the Build Communities Strong Fund, if I have the name correct. There has already been outreach from the minister responsible for some organizations looking for proposals in sport infrastructure.
There is also expected to subsequently be separate outreach — and I understand that maybe through provinces and territories — with respect to community infrastructure. So, yes, there is support for building out and expanding sports and recreation infrastructure across the country. That is being done through Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada and through the big fund announced in Budget 2025.
Senator MacAdam: This mentioned $755 million over five years starting in 2026-27. What do you estimate will be spent in 2026-27 of that $755 million?
Mr. Brown: Of the $755 million that would be spent in the first year, roughly $129 million is earmarked for spending in the first year.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will continue along the same lines. To better understand, let’s look at the sport budget in your tables, in the departmental plan, table 27 and table 28.
If we look at the total amount set aside for sport this year, compared to the ending programs, which brings us to 2028-29, there is still a reduction of $77 million between the two. However, there is an additional $155 million, so in terms of new funding, it’s $78 million, not $155 million, as announced yesterday. Therefore, the new funding is $78 million, correct?
Mr. Brown: The amount for sport indicated for this year is $311 million.
The Chair: We see that in 2029, it’s $77 million less. If $155 million is announced, that means an additional $78 million in 2029, not $155 million.
Mr. Brown: What I can say is that with yesterday’s announcement about this $155 million over five years, the amount for each year varies, but the ongoing amount will be an additional $110 million after five years. The budget for this aspect of sport for the department also varies. There was a slightly higher amount for a few years to support the World Cup.
The Chair: I must admit that I’m having a hard time following. The announcement covers five years. We agree that we’re talking about the Main Estimates, but the announcement was made yesterday. We can’t help but ask questions about it. Can you tell us, for a five-year period, in relation to both the Main Estimates and yesterday’s announcement, how much more money there is and how much more there is per program?
We all know athletes. I’m pretty close to this year’s Olympic champion. He’s a star, and he makes ends meet, but his colleagues and friends are living in poverty. They really need that money. We saw Laurent Dubreuil speak out. We saw him happy yesterday, but we want to be sure that he’s truly happy and that he won’t be in for a surprise when he gets the cheque.
When we see the budgets, when we see the announcement, when we see the decrease over three or four years, we’re no longer sure of anything. I think the committee would like to have details, for a five-year period, on the planned budgets, the Main Estimates, the costs of the announcement with the various amounts that will go to the various programs, so that we can follow what’s happening, including the differential. That way we can tell our athletes, “Money is coming,” or “Keep your job at the corner store, because you won’t have enough.” Is that okay?
Mr. Brown: I think we can provide you with the figures for each of the programs.
The Chair: We’re going to study the budget implementation bill, so we’ll know what the situation is with sport. We’ll call you back if we think we should, but if the study is satisfactory, that won’t be necessary.
Mr. Brown: Even with yesterday’s announcement, we don’t have all the details yet. There’s a line in the economic update that indicates an investment for athletes, but we don’t know whether it’s the athlete assistance program or support for athletes’ mental health. It isn’t in this program, or it’s in another program. At this time, it’s impossible to have all those details.
The Chair: In 10 days’ time, you’ll have the chance to talk to people with decision-making power, and we’ll have more details. That concludes this part of the meeting.
For our second panel today, we welcome France Pégeot, Chair and Chief Executive Officer; and Ruth Dagenais, Director General, Dispute Resolution Branch, from the Canadian Transportation Agency.
We also welcome Nancy Fitchett, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary; and Kelsey MacTavish, Senior Vice-President, Operations, from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Finally, we have Marc Morin, Secretary General and Executive Vice-President, Corporate Services and Operations; and Scott Hutton, Vice-President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy Officer, from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee.
We will now hear opening remarks from Ms. Pégeot, Ms. Fitchett and Mr. Morin.
France Pégeot, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to discuss the Canadian Transportation Agency’s programs.
With me is Ruth Dagenais, Director General, responsible for the Air Travel Complaints Resolution Office.
Created under the Canada Transportation Act, the agency is both a regulator and an independent administrative tribunal. Its mandate covers the entire federal transportation network, including the aviation, rail and marine sectors.
Its three broad roles are to help ensure that the national transportation system functions efficiently, to provide consumer protection for air passengers and to protect the human rights of people with disabilities to an accessible transportation network.
As an economic regulator, the agency develops and applies ground rules that establish the rights and responsibilities of transportation service providers and users and that level the playing field for the various competitors in the market.
These rules can be binding regulations, guidelines or codes of practice. It also issues a variety of regulatory authorities, including those required to operate federal transportation in Canada such as permits and licences.
As a tribunal, the agency hears and resolves disputes between transportation service providers and their clients or surrounding communities using various tools, both formal and informal. Given the significant public interest in the number of complaints received by the agency, I would like to take this opportunity to share with this committee some information on the steps we have taken and continue to take to maximize the number of air travel complaints we process.
[English]
I will speak briefly about air passenger protections. To put the situation in context, up to until 2016, the agency received roughly 850 air passenger complaints per year. This steadily grew over the following three years, culminating in a significant increase after the coming into force of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, or APPR, where in 2019-20, the number of cases received reached almost 20,000. Over the last three years, more than 40,000 complaints per year were received, a trend that is continuing. In January 2026, we received the highest ever monthly volume of complaints at 5,685. March 2026 was nearly as high with 5,682 complaints received.
While the number of incoming complaints is not within the agency’s control, the agency has been working to maximize the use of its available resources and has increased its processing capacity.
Although the agency has been undertaking initiatives and reviews to increase productivity for many years, the transformation really began at the beginning of 2023, when the agency was provided $75.9 million over three years, primarily to support the processing of air passenger complaints, and when Parliament made changes to the act in June 2023 to modify how the agency processes those complaints. In only three months, the agency launched the completely redesigned Complaints Resolution Office, a more straightforward, rapid and cost‑effective system.
During its first two full fiscal years of operation, the office closed over 32,000 complaints per year, a roughly 200% increase in comparison to the full fiscal year preceding the creation and implementation of the new process. At that time roughly 11,000 cases were closed.
While we believe that gain in productivity is an important success, the agency is continuing to develop new tools, processes, and strategies to continue to increase the number of complaints that can be resolved within our resources, including leveraging artificial intelligence. As a result of the investments we have made over the past year, we have set an ambitious target of closing 45,000 complaints this fiscal year. This would represent an additional 50% improvement in productivity and bring the agency’s processing capacity roughly in line with the current rate of complaints being submitted, assuming it doesn’t go up.
I would note at the time of the tabling of Main Estimates, which you have in front of you, a decision on certain budget renewals, including the agency’s temporary funding, has not yet been made. Yesterday, the spring economic update introduced by the government now confirms this temporary funding has been renewed for two years.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I will be pleased to respond to your questions.
[Translation]
Nancy Fitchett, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
My name is Nancy Fitchett. I am Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA. I am joined by my colleague Kelsey MacTavish, Senior Vice‑President of Operations.
Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today as part of the committee’s study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
[English]
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, was the centrepiece of the Government of Canada’s response to the events of September 11, 2001, and we were established on April 1, 2002. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority fulfills a critical security mandate by ensuring the secure and efficient movement of people and goods across the domestic and international air transportation system, contributing to national security and economic growth.
Our vision is to deliver the most secure aviation security screening service and the best client experience through our leadership.
[Translation]
As a Crown corporation fully funded by government appropriations, CATSA reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport.
CATSA operates in a highly regulated and integrated domestic environment, in accordance with the direction set by our regulator, Transport Canada, which is Canada’s designated authority overseeing civil aviation.
CATSA delivers security screening at 89 designated airports across the country through a third-party screening contractor model.
[English]
As a key contributor to Canada’s air transportation system, CATSA is responsible for pre-board screening, hold baggage screening, non-passenger screening and the restricted area identity card program.
Through the proactive modernization of security protocols, targeted investments in technology, and strengthened partnerships, CATSA remains committed to advancing aviation security, operational efficiency and resilience in response to evolving risks.
The 2026-27 Main Estimates allocated just over $562 million to CATSA. We are currently working with the government to secure the additional funding.
With this funding, CATSA will be able to continue its mandated requirements and activities. That includes leveraging strong collaboration with partners to drive an integrated aviation industry and advancing shared objectives; further improving the passenger experience via streamlined processes and maintaining an annual wait-time service level, where 95% of passengers wait less than 15 minutes to be screened at Class 1 airports; augmenting security effectiveness and screening efficiency through artificial intelligence-supported operations; modernizing screening and biometric systems and enhancing secure data platforms; and, finally, building a future-ready workforce.
In closing, we thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. We look forward to answering questions from the committee within our purview.
[Translation]
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Marc Morin, Secretary General and Executive Vice-President, Corporate Services and Operations, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People.
I am joined today by my colleague Scott Hutton, Vice‑President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy.
[Translation]
We are here today to discuss the CRTC’s Main Estimates. I would like to begin by providing a brief overview of the CRTC and talking about some of the work we do for Canadians. I will then move on to our funding.
As you know, the CRTC is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates Canada’s communications industry in the public interest. We hold public consultations on telecommunications and broadcasting matters and make decisions based on the public record.
The CRTC is made up of nine members: a chairperson, a vice‑chairperson for broadcasting, a vice-chairperson for telecommunications, and six regional commissioners who are located across the country. The commission is supported by a team of expert staff that helps it make informed decisions.
[English]
Before getting to our funding, let me briefly outline our main area of activity: telecommunications and broadcasting. In terms of telecommunications, the CRTC has implemented concrete measures in recent years to promote competition and support investment in networks. These measures include improving access to the networks of large telecommunications firms, which enables competitors to offer Canadians new choices and greater affordability of internet and cellphone services.
Canadians are starting to see the results. According to Statistics Canada, prices for cell phone services fell by 37.7% between 2021 and 2025. Competitors have announced plans to deliver new competitive choices of internet services for up to 8.5 million households. Improving access to new, affordable packages is only part of the equation. We must also ensure that Canadians can easily find these new choices in the market, switch providers when they find plans that meet their needs and not be surprised by higher bills. Our recent decisions help Canadians to better manage their internet and cellphone plans.
The CRTC is also part of a broader effort by the federal government to protect Canadians from spam, malware, phishing and other electronic threats. The CRTC is one of three organizations, along with the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, that promotes and enforces Canada’s anti-spam legislation, known as CASL.
[Translation]
That gives you an overview of our work in telecommunications. I’ll now briefly discuss broadcasting.
The CRTC is implementing the modernized Broadcasting Act to ensure that the new regulatory framework reflects today’s digital environment and that all players — including streaming services — contribute fairly to the Canadian system.
The modernization of the broadcasting framework involves complex issues. As a tribunal, we must hold public proceedings and base our decisions on the public record. To date, we have received more than 1,700 submissions reflecting divergent views. We are aware of the challenges facing the sector, which is why we have acted quickly in key areas.
We have issued several important decisions, including one requiring streaming services to support areas of immediate need. This will result in an estimated $200 million annually flowing into the Canadian broadcasting system. We have also issued decisions to help television and radio stations produce local news.
[English]
We will continue to publish important decisions in the coming weeks, so please stay tuned.
I would now like to turn to the CRTC’s funding. Parliamentary appropriations account for only a small portion of our funding and are used primarily for specific responsibilities, including implementation of CASL. While our appropriations are modest, they continue to support the fulfillment of our responsibilities. It is important to note that the funding we receive to support this work represents approximately 4.5% of our overall budget. This is a very small portion of our activities as a regulatory agency.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to emphasize that we are working on multiple fronts and are making tangible progress on our responsibilities.
[English]
We are focused on making a difference on the issues that matter to Canadians, and we are moving quickly while managing our budget responsibly.
We look forward to your questions and to discussing these issues further. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. I have a few questions for the CRTC. I will just rattle them all off and you can try to rattle off your responses.
First, you talked about the overall budget. What I am seeing is $18.6 million last year going up to $21.8 million for next year. Is that about right?
Mr. Morin: In the Main Estimates last year, we had $21.8 million, and this year, we are receiving $17.5 million.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. That’s in terms of the money you get from the general revenues. The rest of the funding for CRTC comes from cost recovery, from the fees you charge the folks you regulate?
Mr. Morin: Correct.
Senator Cardozo: What’s that in the order of?
Mr. Morin: In fiscal year 2025-26, it is approximately $116 million.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
You may know that I just issued a report today entitled Making News Media Sustainable: Options for the Long Term, and one of the things I am looking at is the Canadian journalism labour tax credit that has existed for print media. This was extended yesterday in the update to cover audiovisual producers, which is great. I would like to find out what your role is in that.
Third, in terms of the Google and the Online News Act, is there any update on that? Is there any chance of other players entering the fray?
Lastly, CPAC has cut back their services considerably, which is of concern to us as parliamentarians. Primarily, I understand it was because it took a while for you to process their request for an increase of their rates.
I will ask you to comment on those questions.
Mr. Morin: If I may, maybe I will respond to the CPAC question first and then defer to my colleague, Scott Hutton, for the other two.
Like all Canadians, the CRTC is concerned about job losses in the media sector. As it relates to CPAC, the CRTC did approve the application it received for the increase of the wholesale rate. Ultimately, the CRTC granted what CPAC was asking for, which was a 3-cent-per-month increase, which equated to a 23% increase starting on the date that they requested. We approved their application.
Over and above that, we’re continuing to advance work to modernize the Broadcasting Act and implement other mechanisms that may support them in the future.
Scott Hutton, Vice-President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: With respect to the AV credits, we would not play any role on that front. We would not be involved. That’s a matter for the Department of Heritage and setting policy, but primarily, the Department of Finance at that time —
Senator Cardozo: Is the CRA the one that —
Mr. Hutton: The CRA administers tax collection, but the people who set the policy are somewhere else.
With respect to Google and their participation in the Online News Act, which I believe was the second question, we can certainly confirm that they have lived up to their part of the bargain. They have contributed the $100 million required for the previous year, and that funding has been distributed.
We also understand that the dollars for this year are in the works, so it would appear that there is going to be continued funding for the upcoming year going forward of another $100 million, according to the calculations of the deal they had made in respect of participation under the Online News Act.
You asked if other people are expected to join. Right now, that’s an open matter before the commission. The other company that is certainly being looked at now — or was being previously considered under the administration of that act, at least — is Meta. There is an open proceeding in front of the commission right now. Being a tribunal, hopefully, you will understand that we cannot speak of open proceedings.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Just on CPAC, it is the job part that we are concerned about and, most importantly, the parliamentary part. It is really important that Parliament be available to Canadians as much as possible. Therefore, securing the robustness of CPAC is in the interests of Parliament and democracy. I just want to underline that.
Mr. Hutton: We certainly share that view, and it is something that we are certainly concerned with. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, we will be able to come up with something additional that might consider matters with respect to discoverability, carriage and, potentially, funding.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Ross: In a summary of the 2025-26 to 2029-30 corporate plan, it is outlined that you hope to explore the application of advanced analytic techniques — AI and biometrics — to enhance oversight, screening and training. How do you plan to invest in biometrics and digital tools in keeping with Transport Canada’s priority of implementing new technology? Does it include the passport-less travel and the Air Right Touch initiative?
Kelsey MacTavish, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Thank you for your question.
On the question of biometrics, CATSA has a long history of operating with biometrics: the Restricted Area Identity Card, or RAIC, is a biometric program that we have operated for more than 20 years. I would say that we have a wealth of knowledge and experience in working with biometrics in the airport environment.
We are very much part of a broader aviation ecosystem as it relates to that, and we are and have been supporting industry initiatives with regard to contactless or touchless biometric initiatives, including an Air Canada pilot project in both Vancouver and Toronto. We have certainly positioned ourselves with industry as being a willing participant and partner in terms of being able to bring our knowledge and experience to the table as part of that broad kind of end-to-end seamless passenger journey.
On the question of artificial intelligence, we have made targeted investments, specifically to a particular initiative that is under way right now, which is the use of AI to augment oversight. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is a small Crown corporation; we have about 500 employees across the country, and we cannot possibly be in all 89 designated airports at any given time. Therefore, AI oversight allows us to take a look at screening compliance, or elements of screening compliance, using things like CCTV cameras and the AI overlay to determine whether screening personnel are compliant with requirements. We are moving that trial into a phased deployment as we speak.
We have a number of initiatives as part of a broader innovation roadmap, as well, that are looking at these technologies and other forms of automation. Many of you who travel will have seen the new CT technology in a number of our largest airports. That technology lays the foundation for auto detection, which is algorithm- and AI-based detection of threats or prohibited items, essentially.
On a number of levels, there are investments. Nancy could speak more specifically to the dollars, but in terms of the operating piece, we have a number of irons in the fire in terms of moving that forward. We’re very much engaging with industry and the Department of Transport, as our regulator, to ensure we are in compliance with Government of Canada standards.
Senator Ross: — these new products will be implemented, and when?
Ms. MacTavish: That’s the million-dollar question.
The aviation environment is a complex one and full of different organizations — federal organizations, air carriers, airport authorities — so it requires a great deal of coordination. I think CATSA would say to you that we have never seen more engagement and coordination than we are seeing today: data‑sharing initiatives with industry and leadership from the department. We’re certainly seeing signals around Transport Canada’s engagement on that.
I cannot tell you when everything will be done, but we are all swimming in the same direction. Over time, it will get us to where we need to be. We will have a seat at the table as a willing partner in that.
Senator Ross: Thank you so much.
Senator Hébert: In your speech, you said you were currently working to secure financing. This means that when I look at your budget in 2025-26, $1.2 billion, and $562 million in 2026-27 — this means that you did not have any answers in what was presented yesterday, or did you?
Ms. Fitchett: Yes, we did, actually. Yesterday, in the Spring Economic Update, there was $734 million included for CATSA for 2026-27. That obviously still needs to go through the government process for CATSA to be able to access it.
Senator Hébert: That $734 million is in addition to the $562 million that is here? Okay. So your budget is still going up. Okay. Thank you very much.
My next question is for Madam Pégeot.
[Translation]
In fact, we’re talking about programs aimed at protecting the fundamental right of people with disabilities to an accessible transportation network. From what was announced to you yesterday and from your estimates, could you tell us whether the budgets for the services you provide to people with disabilities are being maintained or increased, or whether they’re likely to be decreased?
Ms. Pégeot: Our accessibility mandate is mainly funded through our Main Estimates, that is, our permanent budget. The part of the temporary budget is mainly for managing air passenger complaints. However, the portion of the temporary budget allocated to accessibility-related activities is dedicated to implementing legislation. That has allowed us to hire a few additional inspectors to ensure compliance with the regulations.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. My question is for the Canadian Transportation Agency. Congratulations on your efficiency.
Ms. Pégeot: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: However, the number of complaints is increasing. If I understand correctly, there are nearly 100,000 complaints; is that the backlog of all complaints?
Ms. Pégeot: It’s a little less: there are 96,000 or so.
Senator Gignac: Yesterday, the government announced adjustments to the complaint resolution process. Could you tell us a bit more about that? What I read in the update is that the government is announcing its intention to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral, third-party dispute resolution body.
The government is going to draw inspiration from the U.K. and EU model.
I have no idea how it works over there; I don’t know if you found out at the same time as we did yesterday, and you don’t have to answer the question, but what does it mean to you?
The Chair: Her body language tells me that she didn’t find out about it much before we did.
Senator Gignac: You knew about it a few hours before I did.
Ms. Pégeot: Joking aside, this is still relatively new information, and we’re in discussions with the Department of Transport to understand the meaning of all this.
What the document basically said was that the backlog of complaints would be transferred to a third party, another body. That’s in terms of the backlog. However, we would continue to handle the complaints that come in on a daily basis. I admit that the news came out yesterday and that I really don’t have many details to share with you. In fact, the Department of Transport would be in a better position to answer those questions.
Senator Gignac: It’s just like us. Okay, that’s fine.
I notice that when people travel internationally, it’s more on the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority side. When people travel, they arrive at their destination and encounter all the screening, but they’re also screened when they leave the country, so I’m a bit surprised by that.
Is what’s happening in Canada the same as in other countries? When I travel to certain countries, it isn’t just when I arrive, but also when I leave the country that I have to show my passport. Am I missing something? It seems to me that we don’t quite do that in Canada.
Ms. MacTavish: It’s true that it can be very different depending on the country. Of course, Europe has both the Schengen area and countries outside of that, so even within the European Union, there may be differences.
In Canada, CATSA is responsible for screening passengers when they leave a Canadian airport, whether it’s in Canada, abroad or in the United States, while the Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for screening people who are returning to the country. That means our organizations have different but complementary mandates.
In Canada, our responsibility is simply screening; it’s the Canada Border Services Agency that checks passports and all that.
Senator Gignac: I will have learned a lot tonight.
The Chair: You deal with the security aspect, then?
Ms. MacTavish: Aviation security, including the fact that you and your luggage, be it carry-on or checked luggage, are screened and that you arrive at your destination safe and sound.
Senator Gignac: Just to attest to that, because I’ve travelled a lot in recent years — a bit too much for my wife’s taste — but I’ve still seen quite a good improvement, so I wanted to let you know. It’s good to share flowers too.
The Chair: The new systems are impressive.
Ms. MacTavish: The blue crescents, yes.
Senator Gignac: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: I’ll continue along the same lines. I told Ms. Pégeot that I had some questions for her.
First, your target is to process 45,000 cases in the fiscal year; that target was set a month ago. You’ll have 45,000 cases to process, and you have been receiving an average of more than 5,000 since the beginning of the year. If that continues, you will have between 60,000 and 70,000 complaints to process. You’re going to process half of them, for all intents and purposes, and you have backlogs of 90,000 complaints, so we’re talking about three to four years before the backlogs are processed, assuming no more cases come in. There’s a fundamental problem in the system.
I don’t know what the plans are, but I see that your budget has been reduced from $52 million to $35 million. I understand that you’re going to use artificial intelligence, but you’ll have to do some magic as well, I assume, because I don’t know how it’s going to be possible to get there.
I’d like you to talk a bit about that. I’d also like to hear what you think of Air Canada’s pilot project. The airline introduced a parallel system, saying that it will pay an arbitrator to review claims and will respect the arbitrator’s decision, but that customers who aren’t satisfied can still pursue their complaint with the agency. The airline is going to invite 500 randomly selected passengers to participate. I think that’s already been done. It’s a pilot project, and if it’s successful, 400 of those 500 outstanding claims could end up being resolved. Obviously, that would help you.
If the system proves somewhat successful, would you be open to Air Canada’s implementing the system across the board?
I have a number of questions, but I’m trying to help you with your backlog.
Ms. Pégeot: First, let me reassure you. Yesterday, our temporary funding was renewed for another two years. Basically, that means we have the same amount of funding we had for the past three years.
Senator Dalphond: It’s staying at around $60 million, then.
Ms. Pégeot: That’s good news.
Yes, we received 5,000 complaints, but I would say the number varies depending on the season. Typically, flight delays are more common in the winter than in the summer. Over the past three years, we’ve received between 42,000 and 47,000 complaints annually. That is why we are aiming to close 45,000 complaints next year. That is the target we’ve set — it’s ambitious, I admit — and we think we can achieve it. That is for . . . .
Senator Dalphond: That still leaves 100,000 outstanding complaints.
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, the number is 100,000, but as Senator Gignac mentioned, yesterday, the government also announced that it planned to transfer the backlog to a third-party provider. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more information to share, because those discussions are happening now.
Senator Dalphond: That’s a bit like what Air Canada is doing in parallel.
Ms. Pégeot: It’s different, so . . . .
Senator Dalphond: It’s binding on the parties, and the government chooses?
Ms. Pégeot: I would think so. As I said, unfortunately, the announcement just came out, and we are in talks to see whether we can help implement the decision that was made.
It’s a bit different with Air Canada. If a passenger isn’t satisfied because their flight was delayed or there was a problem with the flight, the passenger has to contact the airline before filing a complaint with the agency. The airline has 30 days to respond to the complaint, and if the passenger isn’t satisfied with that response, then they can submit a complaint to us.
Under Air Canada’s pilot project, the airline is basically using a third party to resolve passenger complaints. They are complaints that Air Canada received, which means they were temporarily removed from our backlog for Air Canada to deal with. Air Canada contacted the passengers to ask whether they wanted to participate in the pilot.
It’s a brand-new system, so we don’t yet know what the results look like. What matters is that passengers who decide to participate in Air Canada’s pilot won’t lose their place in the queue. They’ll stay in our system, and they don’t have to agree to participate. If they do participate and they aren’t satisfied with the outcome, they can resume the process with the agency.
To be frank, we always encourage airlines to resolve the complaints themselves.
Senator Dalphond: Banks have ombuds and insurance companies do too. Is there another policy in your regulations to charge airlines for claims processing? That isn’t in effect, but is it something that could eventually be put in place?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, that was actually a requirement in the legislation passed in 2023. We came up with a proposal and we consulted on it in fall 2024. The transportation ministers asked to be consulted, and at this point, I have nothing further to share on the implementation of the initiative.
Senator Dalphond: You’re continuing to pursue that option?
Ms. Pégeot: The option has to be either implemented or withdrawn, but as I said, the ministers asked to be consulted, so I can’t provide any further information.
Senator Dalphond: It’s been quite a while. You had two previous ministers, so this is your third in a short period of time.
Senator Oudar: I’m going to stay on the topic of dispute resolution. Let me start by thanking all six of you for being here today.
I’m going to continue the discussion with you, Ms. Pégeot. My question is about the resolution of disputes.
Specifically, in your 2026-27 departmental plan, one of the agency’s targets is to resolve all air consumer protection disputes within service standards. I’m referring to your results and targets.
Fellow senators, it’s important to recognize when organizations get things right and don’t miss targets or fall short on indicators, so I want to recognize that. On the indicator “percentage of regulatory authorities issued and determination cases resolved within service standards,” your target was 85%, but you achieved 99%. Congratulations. As my fellow senators know, I ask a lot of questions about targets and indicators, but sometimes we see that officials are less concerned about results. Great work. Not only did you set an ambitious target, but you also surpassed it.
I’m turning to another indicator, “percentage of rail and marine disputes resolved within service standards.”
I see that you aim to stay within service standards. Your target was 80%, and you’re at 62%. You must have noticed that as well, so I’m sure you have an explanation. What’s the reason, given that you hit 77% last year? Your ability to meet service standards has decreased, but why?
Ms. Pégeot: I can tell you. The number of rail disputes we receive really varies from year to year. The complexity of cases varies a lot as well. Given the available resources, we aim to achieve the percentage of disputes resolved within the process, but that isn’t possible in some cases.
The other thing is that it also depends on the progression of the cases. Sometimes the parties — be it the railway companies or the shippers who ship their goods by rail — intervene and make use of various mechanisms within the administrative tribunal process, and that can delay the decision in some cases.
Senator Oudar: Would it be better for you to split rail and marine disputes, precisely because of that? That seems to be why the result can really miss the mark. Now the two are grouped together. As I understand it, not only are the service standards different, but so are the regulations.
Ms. Pégeot: Most of the disputes concern the rail sector. We don’t have a lot of cases in the marine sector.
Senator Oudar: Are next year’s results available yet? All we have are the results for 2024-25, but what are you expecting? Is the target still 80%? How are things looking in terms of your projected target?
Ms. Pégeot: I don’t have that information for the rail sector, but I can tell you that the number of air travel consumer complaints remains very high. I can give you some information on that. Typically, under the act, when we start working on a complaint, it has to be resolved within 90 days. That time frame doesn’t start when the complaint is submitted. Once the officer starts processing the complaint, we have 90 days to resolve it. We’ve made various improvements to the process and are now able to resolve complaints within 39 days on average. We should be able to keep up our performance on that.
Senator Oudar: Basically, that’s the average wait time for an air consumer protection dispute to be resolved. Is that correct?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, but it’s once we start working on the case.
Senator Oudar: The target is 30 days, not 90, according to your report.
Ms. Pégeot: Since we have a backlog of complaints, a person who submits a complaint will obviously have to wait more than 39 days. However, once we start looking at their case, ask the parties for documentation and examine it, we have 90 days under the act. As of now, we have consistently brought down the number of days it takes us to resolve a complaint. We’re at about 39 days.
Senator Oudar: Congratulations. In your 2026-27 departmental plan, why does it say that the results for 2022‑23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 are not available?
Ms. Pégeot: In 2023, we introduced a new system using those service standards. The information in the report reflects our performance based on the new complaint management system. That system was established under the act in June 2023.
The Chair: On the subject of complaints, I’d like to know what the typical complaints are. Given the number of complaints coming in, what are the top two or three issues that account for the high numbers?
Ms. Pégeot: For the most part, the complaints are due to flight issues such as delays. That accounts for 86.4%.
The Chair: Could it have to do with compensation?
Ms. Pégeot: It could be compensation, flight cancellations or flight changes. The complaints stem from those issues. Then, 6% of complaints are baggage-related. Ticket reservation accounts for 3% of complaints. Most of the complaints, about 85%, have to do with flight issues.
The Chair: I have another question. We’ve seen two bills, including Bill C-15, where the government completely took away your jurisdiction over the high-speed train. Now the government is taking complaints resolution away from you, saying it will handle it. I don’t know whether you were consulted on the high-speed train or the fact that you were excluded from that file. What’s happening at the Department of Transport? Do they not trust you? Why do you think the Department of Transport — the government — didn’t want you to have jurisdiction over the high-speed train? I have to tell you, I’ve read a lot about what you do, and I thought you were the ideal agency to deal with any issues that arise between the proponent and citizens.
Ms. Pégeot: Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I can’t answer that. Those are decisions the government made, and we are perfectly fine with them, of course.
The Chair: I see.
Turning to the CRTC officials, I think of you often when I’m driving down Highway 50 and I lose cellphone service. I know you have funding for broadband coverage. There’s the Broadband Fund, which you administer, and another one, the Universal Broadband Fund, which Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, administers. How does all that come together? Do you administer them together? How do you work with ISED to make sure it’s all coordinated? I’m trying to figure out why there’s still no coverage on Highway 50.
Mr. Hutton: It’s not broadband when we’re talking about cellphone coverage on Highway 50. Yes, the two funds worked mainly in parallel. We have a small amount, roughly $150 million a year, which can be targeted in response to needs. We tend to target more rural and more northern areas. Right now, we have an open call for projects focusing on Indigenous territories and communities. The goal is really to give people broadband coverage at home. The fund can be used to build new infrastructure for coverage on major roads like Highway 50, but only a small portion of it.
That’s our fund. The fund administered by the Department of Industry does more or less the same thing, but it was a lot bigger. It provided a lot more opportunities for larger projects to be funded. The fund is ending, but ours is still in place.
We did work together on administering the combined funding, while maintaining the independence of the CRTC and the ministerial decisions at the Department of Industry. We did, however, share data collection.
We shared data collection and we also shared everything related to current network spread. We did the mapping together, to see who was submitting an application and what currently existed to avoid any overlap between the two funds.
The Chair: Wouldn’t it be easier to have one organization administering a bigger fund?
Mr. Hutton: The way things are looking right now, in a few months’ time, we’re probably going to end up with a single fund, the CRTC’s, because ISED’s program is ending.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to stick to my allotted time. I have a lot of questions.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I want to come back to some of the CRTC aspects in terms of funding. Just to clarify, the estimates provide you with $21.8 million, and you say it’s about $160 million from your cost recovery basis?
Mr. Morin: It is $116 million, and our Main Estimates are $17.5 million. But of that, $4.9 million is through appropriations, and the other stuff is statutory votes, which are recovered within the $116 million.
Senator Cardozo: How is it decided how much you get from general revenues as opposed to the rest of your income? I ask that in the context of workload. My understanding is that the last two or three years, you’ve had a considerably increased workload because of what we sent you from Parliament, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. In a sense, you have had to retool for that, and during this process a lot of licence renewals were put on hold, or you did administrative renewals, which had a lot of broadcasters quite concerned.
Mr. Morin: Very quickly, we have very static appropriations that are limited to our CASL program. Our activities are cost recovered for the — all the work we do on the broadcasting side is coded to broadcasting and is billed to the broadcasting industry. All the work we do on the telecom side is coded to telecom and recovered from the telecom industry. We have a separation in between the funds of what is government appropriations — that’s a fixed pot. We code all of the activities from telecom, code all of that, and then the bills are separated accordingly based on our activities.
Senator Cardozo: [Technical difficulties] complete now in terms of Bill C-11, Bill C-18 reorganization stuff?
Mr. Morin: We continue to undertake some of the major policy works, and above that, we receive applications from industry, both on the telecom and broadcasting side. There is a small backlog of applications that we’re working through, and we’re working through them much faster than we have previously.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ross: My question is for CRTC. You have a section in your plan about engaging with industry, and it says you will continue to promote compliance with CASL, the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules and Voter Contact Registry by actively working with industry, and one initiative speaks of enforcement advisories. Can you tell me what that’s about?
Mr. Morin: We have a large suite of enforcement tools. Some of the work we do is around promotion with what the existing requirements on commercial businesses are and what they have to do and what they cannot do. It ranges to warning letters all the way to administrative monetary penalties. I suspect this is referring to that middle zone, where we work with companies that want to be in compliance that maybe are just not quite doing it because they’re unaware or whatnot. An administrative monetary penalty may be too heavy, whereas a warning letter and adjustment to compliance are more appropriate.
Senator Ross: Are you finding that you’re having a lot of those enforcement advisory issues and monetary penalties?
Mr. Morin: I guess it depends. There are a lot of complaints that come in through the Spam Reporting Centre. That being said, we revert to administrative monetary penalties when required. Last year, we administered $1.8 million worth of administrative monetary penalties. I don’t have the metrics in terms of the enforcement adjustment or the warning letter, nor the compliance approach, but, generally, we do all of those.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Ms. Pégeot, am I right in thinking that with most of the complaints having to do with flight delays, the fact that the airline cites a situation outside its control means it won’t be required to compensate the passenger?
Ms. Pégeot: I don’t know the reason, because we don’t get that information. I can tell you that they involve delays, but they also involve cancellations.
Senator Dalphond: The main reason airlines give is that the problem was due to a mechanical issue or an event outside their control, so the regulations don’t apply. There’s an exception in the regulations for events outside the airline’s control, is there not?
Ms. Pégeot: An event outside the airline’s control includes bad weather or an incident on the tarmac. It can be a variety of things.
Senator Dalphond: Do I understand correctly that there is an exception in the regulations for events outside the airline’s control?
Ms. Pégeot: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you for making yourselves available to us. I think we got thorough answers. We wish you well as you go back to your regular activities. The committee will meet again next Tuesday at 9 a.m.
(The committee adjourned.)