Transport committee  Thank you for the question. In my view, it is absolutely abnormal for any merchant, any service provider, to offer services or goods that they don't have the resources to deliver. This is a matter that should also be looked under the Competition Act, rather than simply in terms of air passenger rights.

Transport committee  I support the recommendation of Mr. Lawford about the short-term solution. The minister has some powers under subsection 86.11(2) to direct the agency to make regulations. The cabinet, under section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act, also can promptly amend the air passenger protection regulations to at least fix some of the definitions, to fix the small carrier versus large carrier problem and lower the threshold maybe to 100,000 or 50,000 passengers per year between small and large carriers, and to deal with the baggage issues.

Transport committee  I'm happy to answer your question. Our view is that it is not a single-solution problem. One needs to have pillars that, together, result in the solution to the problem. On the one hand, we need to have much simpler eligibility criteria so there will not be a backlog, so that it will take just a few minutes or less than half an hour to determine, in any case, whether compensation is owed.

Transport committee  Thank you. In terms of the refund issue, the current APPR is actually a step backwards compared to what has been declared by consumer protection law for the past 20 years, and it is also inconsistent with provincial consumer protection laws. There's a very obvious no-brainer standard that, if a flight is cancelled for any reason, the bare minimum a passenger can do is seek a refund, even if the airline offers them an alternate flight in three or six or nine hours.

Transport committee  Absolutely, and I strongly support not only simple criteria that match the European regime, but also that airlines would be required to proactively pay those compensations to passengers without the passengers having to run after the airlines and ask for the compensation.

Transport committee  Thank you for the question. The way to simplify the regulations, first and foremost, is to harmonize with the European Union's classification approach for entitlement to compensation. Under the European system, there are only two categories. The first is flight disruptions, which are caused by events that are normal to an airline's operation.

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

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

Transport committee  Let's separate the APPR from enforcement. You see, the APPR is a regulation. The problem with the APPR is that the airlines don't follow the APPR. Whether you go to small claims court or use other means of enforcement, that's about how you enforce your rights as a passenger. The APPR, with respect to baggage, incorporates the Montreal Convention, which is an international treaty and it's part of the Carriage by Air Act.

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

Transport committee  The Canadian Transportation Agency recently received an additional $10 million in funding, if I recall the figure correctly. That would need to be verified. It is not a question of money, though. It is a question of how this money is being spent and whether the procedures and regulations are amenable to the efficient processing of complaints to begin with.

Transport committee  I would say that in order to achieve that type of system, we need to change how clearly the rules are written. Right now, to verify eligibility for a $400 claim means a thousand pages of documents and possibly a legal argument. In the European Union, typically a passenger's eligibility for compensation can realistically be verified in a couple of minutes, because it requires so little information.

Transport committee  Providing a refund in any event, regardless of the cause of the cancellation, of course makes perfect sense. That's what the law is in the European Union and the U.S. However, if the airline cancels the flight for reasons that are not extraordinary, they also have to compensate passengers for their time and their inconvenience, because, after all, that is also a cost to the economy.

Transport committee  Under section 67.4 of the Canada Transportation Act and subsection 113.1(3) of the air transportation regulations, the Canadian Transportation Agency can make determinations that are applicable to all passengers or some passengers on the same flight if they complain before the agency.

Transport committee  The Canada Transportation Act allows the CTA to issue fines of up to $25,000 per passenger per incident for violations of the APPR. With respect to the main provisions of the APPR relating to compensation of passengers, I'm aware of only one fine very recently issued against WestJet for $11,000 for 55 violations.