Thank you for the question. It's a pleasure to be here.

There are two main differences that are worth mentioning. The first and the most important one is about closing the loophole with respect to the “required for safety” reasons. Bill C-327 would hard-code in the primary legislation that compensation is the norm and that the airline can avoid compensation only in truly extraordinary circumstances. Those circumstances are spelled out in Bill C-327 clearly. They are not left to anybody else to decide.

In sharp contrast, the budget bill retains the loophole. It makes four references to the “required for safety” reasons if you do a search in the electronic text. On the longer timeline, it shunts the list of exceptions to the Canadian Transportation Agency in the form of regulations where we know—we have already heard just yesterday or the day before from the airlines—they would like to see the same loopholes retained, claiming that safety is so important that airlines should never have to pay compensation when a flight is cancelled due to so-called safety issues.

A second important difference relates to the burden of proof. In Bill C-327, it is clear and unambiguous that it doesn't matter whether the passenger goes to small claims court, provincial superior court or a class action in federal court, the burden of proof will always be on the carrier to show why a flight was delayed or cancelled or why a passenger was bumped.

In sharp contrast, in the budget implementation bill, that burden of proof is shifted only if the passenger agrees to forgo their right to due process before an impartial judge, agrees to a star chamber-like secretive process and goes through the Canadian Transportation Agency's kangaroo court.

Transcript

Discussions (0)