TRAN Committee Report

Supplementary opinion

Report on the study of the Air passenger protection regulations

By the office of Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Presented to The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

March 27th, 2023

Introduction

First, the Bloc Québécois salutes the members of the Committee as well as the committee staff for the professionalism they have shown and the work they have accomplished during this study and thanks all the witnesses and citizens who shared their perspective the Air passenger protection regulation.

From industry players to consumer protection advocates, the same narrative has been heard: the APPR does not work in its current form and needs substantial reforms. We welcome the scope of the recommendations adopted by the committee and we ask the minister to include them all in his announced reform.

A transpartisan and necessary reform

‘’Significant deficiencies that need to be addressed’’, ‘’structurally unsound’’, ‘’essentially a sham’’, the witnesses were blunt when describing the current state of the APPR. Some were more cautious, saying that the pandemic had not allowed the APPR to prove itself during "a period of stability […] outside of COVID chaos". However, Ian Jack from CAA rightly pointed out that the situation, which has been getting closer to normal for the past six to nine months, shows that there are significant gaps that need to be filled.

The committee took note of these findings and chose to adopt a series of robust recommendations that should serve as the foundation for the reform of the APPR announced by Minister Alghabra. Let's study the fictional case of Ms. Tang-Beauséjour to see how the committee's proposals could change the situation:

Ms. Tang-Beauséjour has reserved a seat on a flight between Montréal and Moncton to attend her daughter's wedding. However, the carrier she chose did not adequately prepare and had to cancel the flight due to lack of available staff. At present, the carrier can invoke security reasons, refuse reimbursement to Ms. Tang-Beauséjour and inform her that her spot is postponed to another flight 37 hours after the scheduled departure time, 12 hours after the wedding. If our passenger wishes to appeal the carrier's decision and obtain a refund, the information is difficult to access, and it will only be 18 months and thousands of dollars in taxpayer’s money later that she may be able to receive compensation. Complaint information will be kept secret, so other travelers will not be able to make choose their carriers accordingly.

Contrast this nightmare with the same situation after the implementation of the committee's recommendations. The carrier chosen by Ms. Tang-Beauséjour knows that a cancellation for lack of staff will result in reimbursement and possible compensations, so ensures that the flight has the necessary personnel to take off. If not, the passenger quickly and directly receives the information on the cancellation of her flight and obtains a refund on the credit card used to reserve her place on the flight. If the carrier believes that it does not have to pay a refund or compensation, it is the carrier who will have to prove it to the CTA, which will quickly render its decision for all passengers on the flight. Complaint information will be publicly available, so other passengers can choose carriers accordingly.

The committee's recommendations not only aim to improve the refund and compensation process for travelers, but also put in place market mechanisms that will improve the reliability of air travel.

Going even further

Despite the strength of the committee's recommendations, we believe we could go even further to protect passengers. Based on the testimony received, we believe that the Minister can, in his reform, extend the definitions of the terms “denied boarding” and “flight cancellation”. Indeed, as mentioned by France Pégeot, President of the CTA:

‘’Clearer regulations on the categorization of delays, cancellations or denials of boarding would help reduce the inflow of complaints’’, ‘’grey areas […] are big’’

The current definition of “denied boarding”, according to Gabor Lukács of the Air Passenger Rights group, “represents a step backwards by effectively limiting compensation to situations in which an aircraft has been overbooked.” We favor harmonization of the definition with that found in the European Union, which, again according to Dr. Lukács, ‘’proposes that a determination of denied boarding should be simple and based on facts that are within the passenger’s knowledge, with exceptions only for such reasonable grounds as health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation.’’

We also regret that the term “flight cancellation” is not defined in either the APPR or the Canada Transportation Act. We propose that it, as Dr. Lukács mentions, ‘’should be defined in such a way as to prevent “misleading” references to “schedule change”.

We also recognize that many recommendations are aimed at carriers, but they are not always responsible for the issues that lead to flight delays or cancellations. Thus, we would like to recommend that the minister add a mechanism allowing carriers to recover the costs of compensating passengers from a third party.

Conclusion

The minister received a clear mandate from the TRAN committee. Apply the recommendations to carry out a vast reform of the APPR which will avoid the committee having to consider the question for a third time. We will be on the lookout to assure travelers that the government enact these changes and doesn’t shortchange Québécois and Canadian travelers once again.