Finance Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

First, we want to restore trust by clearing the backlog of complaints. That alone will help restore trust.

Second, the new regime will be clear to everyone. Carriers will understand the limits and the criteria an adjudicator may consider. They will have an incentive to reach a settlement with passengers and terminate their contracts with them. That will be clear for everyone. The dispute resolution process must be swift and straightforward, with clearly explained reasons and grounds for decisions, so that all parties are satisfied following an independent process.

Third, Transport Canada needs clear criteria for licensing and certifying adjudicators, so that people are satisfied and can see that justice is consistently being served.

As I said earlier, I'm open to suggestions to give people additional reassurance about the independence and integrity of the system we are going to establish. There is no reason for it not to work. It works in other places around the world and in Europe, which has some of the first countries to adopt passenger protection regulations similar to what we have. The ones in place now don't inspire trust. I think it's important to recognize when there are obstacles or when we are at a dead end. Everything needs to be redesigned to protect passengers and put in place a clearer, more transparent and above all, faster and efficient system.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

Is it the firms or airlines that will take into account the fact that it will be easier to track processes so that complaints don't accumulate in the long term? How will the firms and companies be monitored?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I also referred to that in my opening remarks, but we've not talked about it so far.

First, we are removing the confidentiality requirements. Today, a passenger complainant, to use that term, is required to stay silent until their case is resolved. That confidentiality requirement has been removed in the new regime. As such, we can expect people to go public on social media, the media, and so forth.

Second, I am committed to publishing indicators online. In my view, a good justice system must allow people to see that justice is being served.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

We will go now to Mr. Guglielmin for five minutes.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for appearing here today.

Minister, for the record, what is the projected federal deficit this year?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We're about a week away from the budget, so you'll have a very fresh piece of data there.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

The PBO reported last week that the projected deficit will be $63.3 billion. The reason I bring this up is that the PBO estimated that the largest project in your portfolio will be $90 billion. It has said that the baseline for Alto could actually reach $113 billion.

I bring this up because that's roughly $50 billion greater than the projected deficit for this fiscal year. Out of curiosity, is there a ceiling at which you would say this project becomes too expensive?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We will be publishing a business case for Alto in the coming months. Very much in the spirit of the times, we are determined to advance more quickly along the planning process for the project, such that we can get shovels in the ground more quickly. As you would well know.... I think you come from Vaughan. There are a lot of great builders in Vaughan. They will tell you that time is money. We want to make sure that we save taxpayers money by getting through the planning process and getting a shovel in the ground on this project more quickly.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I appreciate that answer, but I'm here fighting for taxpayers. When you look at a lot of these projects, they need to be on time and on budget. The PBO is expecting some major overruns, which is already signalling a significant problem with this project.

The PBO has also warned that borrowing is growing much faster than the deficit, and that's specifically because the government is borrowing for capital investments. It projects $732.9 billion in additional borrowing over five years, compared with $333.3 billion in cumulative deficits. Alto is one of the largest capital projects that your government is proposing. At some point, regardless of intention—and I think a lot of people agree with projects that you say are for nation building—what is the ceiling for that project? At what point would you say the overruns are too expensive and we have to go back to the drawing board?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

First of all, we don't have overruns. Talking about overruns at this stage is not an appropriate way to discuss the project. Again, I refer to many of the people in your part of the world who have inspired me and educated me on different classes of estimates. The further you get down the planning process, the more detailed your engineering is and the more you're able to zero in and home in on costs. That is the process we're involved in right now, and we'll be very transparent with Canadians as we go along with—

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I understand all that.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

If you do, you didn't mention it in your earlier observation.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I understand all that, but when you're proposing a project.... Let's say you're doing an expansion for a facility, for example. You want to create an expansion on your facility and put some new equipment in it for a business project. You build the business case, and as you start estimating that this project is becoming more and more expensive, at some point you say, “The ROI on this project doesn't make sense.”

That's the number I'm looking for specifically. What is that number for your department with this specific project?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

When our ancestors built the CPR, what did they imagine the ROI to be? I think it would be a lot less than what it was, ultimately.

This is a piece of nation-building infrastructure that will serve your grandchildren and their grandchildren.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Is it $150 billion, $200 billion or $300 billion? Is there no ceiling?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We're going to follow the appropriate world-leading processes of the engineers, the planners and the financiers who are involved in this project, and we'll be very transparent with Canadians.

Make no mistake that we believe in high-speed rail. We think that in a world where countries like Morocco are moving to high-speed rail, it is high time that we put high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto, and then ultimately to Windsor.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

This doesn't mean there should be a blank cheque. Again, I'm just looking for a specific number. At what point do you think the project is way more expensive than you initially estimated? At what point would you say that we have to get back to the drawing board? Again, this is a major project at major expense to the taxpayers here in Canada.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

This is also an important nation-building project, an important productivity and GDP-boosting project.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

There has to be a limit to the cost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Guglielmin. That concludes the time.

We will go to Mr. Turnbull now for five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Minister, I think you explained quite well in your opening remarks that the regulatory-making authority would be transferred to you so that there could be clarification of the process. This would improve the process and, at the same time, you could clear the backlog by transferring that backlog to another party that could resolve it more quickly. Am I understanding that correctly? Both of them would improve efficiency and probably lessen, I would think, the number of unresolved complaints that exist in the system.

How does clarifying the process reduce the number of unresolved complaints?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

When you have clearer criteria, Mr. Turnbull, the airlines will ultimately be incented to resolve those complaints, those cases, with their passengers and customers before they go to arbitration, because you would have clear and bright lines in the system. We're hoping that this will perhaps, first and foremost, reduce the number of these cases that go to dispute resolution.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Then, through working through that backlog, which would now be done by a third party, how can we be assured that there will be a cost reduction in that process? Is there any evidence you have to suggest that? I want to ask you how quickly we could get through them. I understand there are about 96,000 cases in the backlog. How do we know it would be faster and less costly?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We will be happy to provide transparency on that front, but we are quite confident that not only can the backlog be dealt with more quickly than it otherwise would be under the current system, but it will be done on a much lower cost per case than is currently being done, all the while leaving with the CTA the ability to implement the current system until we make the permanent switch over to a new, clearer, more efficient system.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's great.

I think I read that you've already said there would be harsher consequences for repeated infractions and greater transparency, with passengers being able to opt for their confidentiality to be waived and those cases to be.... Then you have a four-part process, as I understand. You're clarifying the process for dispute resolution for the future, reducing the backlog completely in the most efficient way possible to get caught up, and then increasing accountability and transparency in the system.

Would you say that sort of covers—