Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Garon, will you move amendment BQ‑4?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Of course, Madam Chair. Furthermore, I think this is an excellent amendment. It's so good that, as with all the other rejected amendments, my colleague Mr. Turnbull will probably support the principle of the amendment.

I'm reminded of a long-tenured colleague of mine, who might even be the dean of the House of Commons, but I couldn't confirm that. He said you could support the principle, but that he had fed his dog principles and it ended up starving to death. At some point, you have to take action. I don't have a dog, so I don't know if a dog dies when it is only fed principles. That would have to be verified. I don't think the officials here—and I checked—are qualified to answer that question. It will be for another day.

Meanwhile, the amendment essentially clarifies the new provision of the bill that says you can't file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency and pursue legal actions at the same time. The amendment seeks to exclude class actions from this provision.

We understand the government wants to avoid double compensation. We understand that the intent behind the option of filing a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency is to free up the courts. However, class actions have the same goal, so people should be allowed to do both. I don't think this would lead to double compensation. A class action suit allows the settlement of many cases at once. It takes longer and involves government intervention, but it can be effective.

Despite the idea that you can't have two remedies at the same time, which is judicially valid, exceptions have been made before. One example is the whistle-blower bill, Bill C‑290, which the House adopted unanimously in the last Parliament. The situation was that a person could not, for example, file with the tribunal, or have recourse under the act, and, at the same time, file a grievance related to a collective agreement. However, Parliament as a whole understood that overlapping procedures didn't necessarily mean formal legal proceedings and that, in certain exceptional cases, we could allow, for the proper functioning of the justice system, two recourses.

The amendment essentially keeps the bill as it is, while making the following change: You can file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency while taking part in a class action. It is obviously understood that, when the class action lawsuit is settled, the Transportation Agency is released from all related cases. That's essentially the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Well, at the risk of feeding my colleague more principles, I would say I understand the intent of this, but we do feel as though this would be repetitive in nature. Once the eligibility of a travel complaint is established, that is an option or a lane that is open. I don't think it would be advisable to allow for those individuals to pursue one or more legal paths forward. You can go through a small claims court, a provincial proceeding or maybe a class action suit, but once you've chosen a lane, I think you have to stay in that lane. That's sort of our approach to this in order to preserve some level of continuity in the process and to ensure that there's not....

Again, I think it's about efficiency and fairness that the complainant would choose the path they want to take and is most advantageous to them or most suited to their needs. I think that's what we're trying to make sure we eliminate here. I think the BQ-4 amendment is allowing for multiple paths to be taken at the same time.

For those reasons, we would oppose, sadly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall amendment BQ‑4 carry?

We will now have a recorded vote on amendment BQ‑4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 341 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Colleagues, there are no amendments between clauses 342 and 348. Do we have unanimous consent to group them?

(Clauses 342 to 348 agreed to on division)

(On clause 349)

Mr. Turnbull, would you like to present G-1?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I would, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The intent of G-1 is to ensure that, when the future complaints process is transferred to the Minister of Transport-designated third party processors, the air carrier would need to continue to demonstrate what is currently known as the onus clause—that a flight delay or cancellation was due to an exceptional situation—to avoid paying compensation.

This ensures that the regulation would continue to apply to the future third party process. The idea is that the onus remains on the air carrier to demonstrate that the flight delay or cancellation was due to an exceptional circumstance.

We believe that that needs to survive through the changes that are taking place within the proposed set of changes in Bill C-31. This is for clarity purposes, to ensure that there's an understanding of where that onus lands or lies. I think that the duty remains with the air carrier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Does amendment G-1 carry?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑5.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment basically sets out criteria in the bill that organizations must meet to be eligible to handle complaints, including having no ties to airlines. Since we're talking about arbitration‑type rules, the public and members of Parliament—but especially the public—must have confidence in the system.

We took a close look at what happened in the Senate committee. Transport Canada said that the selection of entities that could handle complaints would be based on strict criteria regarding compliance with official languages and accessibility. We skimmed through the bill and looked for those strict criteria, but we couldn't find them. It's probably just an oversight. We also noticed that the government introduced a number of amendments to its bill. We figured that it overlooked a few things and perhaps cut some corners. We wanted to help. We're simply addressing these issues.

We're fairly confident that the government would have introduced this amendment if we hadn't introduced it first, but we're happy to help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry, colleagues. We agree again with the intent of this, but I think the intent of BQ-5 is to ensure that if the Minister of Transport designates third party processors to resolve air travel complaints in the future, the Minister of Transport must ensure that the designated parties, their executives and their employees are not associated with the air carriers. We agree with the intent.

Additionally, it establishes requirements for designated third party processors to hold expertise in complaints processing, provide service in both official languages and accommodate certain accessibility standards.

We agree, again, with that intent, but we'd like to preserve the ability to develop these sets of standards and requirements through a process that follows after, in regulation. We also feel that it may need to change over time, that those requirements may need to be established and continue to evolve. We agree that the potential conflicts of interest are serious considerations, and we need to protect against them, but we feel the process of doing so should be through regulation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay.

Shall amendment BQ‑5 carry?

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑6.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Chair, amendment BQ‑6 simply seeks to ensure that complaints are distributed across all private entities, rather than having mutual agreements between carriers and private entities.

When we look at the bill, we basically see that the government has decided—as it has done with many other things, for that matter—to simply outsource the government's role to the private sector. In some cases, this can work. However, some form of oversight is still necessary.

If this bill goes through today without any changes and I decide to file a complaint as an airline passenger, I won't believe for a second that the person handling my complaint hasn't worked—in one way or another—with the airline involved in the matter. This was the clearest observation made in the Senate committee's report. The carrier selects a third party that it pays and that it can replace when the agreement expires. There's an economic incentive to retain the client, for one thing.

This amendment helps preserve the integrity of the process. It ties in perfectly with the spirit of the bill to ensure that complaints are distributed across all the entities authorized to handle them—I talked about this when introducing the previous amendment—at the minister's whim and based on a process that remains far from democratic. At the very least, if we distribute these complaints in a way that ensures that the carrier didn't choose its own arbitrator, it's certainly a good start in terms of making the process appear fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to my colleague for putting this forward.

We feel strongly that this would introduce significant inefficiencies into the complaint resolution process by requiring the Minister of Transport to triage passenger complaints and assign them to third party firms. That puts the Minister of Transport into a mediator position. We think it adds a step to the process and could create a significant backlog, which is contrary to the intent of the provisions in this particular bill.

The idea is to equip the minister with the ability to assign whole sets of backlog complaints to third party firms that can process those much more efficiently, get resolution on them and then get those claims paid out quickly. I think 96,000 claims are backlogged. It's a significant number. We want to get those resolved as soon as possible on behalf of air passengers who have been inconvenienced for some time. We would like to see those get resolved and then get their claims paid out. I have many constituents, and I'm sure you do, who have come to me with those challenges. They don't feel as though they've gotten fair or efficient compensation for some of the unresolved claims they have.

That's the intent with which we will be opposing this. We think it adds a step in the process and reduces the efficiency that we're seeking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall amendment BQ‑6 carry?

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑7.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

If you insist, Madam Chair, I would be happy to introduce it.

Amendment BQ‑7 is a gift that we decided to give to the Prime Minister. I don't know his birthday, but we figured that he deserved a gift.

This amendment seeks to place the burden of proof on the airline, particularly when delays occur. The Prime Minister spends a great deal of time in Europe. He loves Europe. He attends summits with Europe. He even wants to be the only one speaking to Europe. We decided to ask that the burden of proof be reversed, as it is in Europe. If his flight from Europe is delayed, perhaps this will even protect him one day.

Basically, when a person files a complaint, they encounter an imbalance in access to information. This person isn't equipped to prove the technical reasons for a flight delay. Not everyone is an aeronautical engineer. As a result, in many cases, people are denied their rights. The European regulation that I spoke about earlier—regulation number 261/2004—already places this burden on carriers. The Court of Justice of the European Union has been enforcing it since 2008. If the amendment is adopted, the Prime Minister can even include it in his agreement with the European Union. This would bring the two continents closer together.

If only for diplomatic reasons, I think that we should adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to my colleague Mr. Garon for putting this forward.

I think, again, the intent of this is great, and we agree with that. It's that we feel that this is unnecessary. Currently, in the Canada Transportation Act, the onus is on air carriers to provide evidence when and if a complaint raises an issue of flight delay, flight cancellation or denial of boarding. It is presumed to be within the carrier's control and not required for safety reasons unless the carrier proves the contrary.

We feel that it's been made clear that the authority to develop regulations on the air carrier's claims process will be transferred to the Minister of Transport through Bill C-31, and the intent is to establish, through ministerial regulations, that air carriers must formally respond to passenger claims by providing a detailed explanation and verifying proof for any refusal of a claim. For those reasons, we don't feel that this is necessary, because we've already made clear what this amendment seeks to achieve. We just don't feel that this change is needed, so for that reason, we'll be opposing it.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall amendment BQ‑7 carry?

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will continue now with CPC-4. Who will be presenting CPC-4?

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to introduce the amendment moved by my colleague, Dan Albas, regarding clause 349 of Bill C‑31. This clause addresses the handling of complaints from airline passengers.

As currently drafted, the bill stipulates that the decision rendered by a designated person regarding a complaint is automatically binding on both parties, meaning the passenger and the airline. The issue stems from the fact that this imposes a decision on the consumer, even when the consumer believes that the decision fails to properly address the complaint. Our amendment seeks to correct this imbalance and better protect passengers' rights.

We're specifically proposing that the complainant be able to accept or reject the decision proposed. If the complainant accepts it, the decision becomes binding on both parties. If the complainant rejects it, the decision has no effect and can't be used against the complainant in any legal proceedings concerning this complaint. It's a matter of fairness and respect for consumer rights.

We don't want to hinder the effective resolution of complaints. On the contrary, we want to ensure that this process works in the best interests of passengers, and not solely in the interests of the airline. Passengers who believe that they have been wronged shouldn't be forced to accept a decision that they consider unfair without having the opportunity to challenge it through other channels. This amendment strikes a better balance between the efficiency of the complaint resolution process and the protection of travellers' rights.

I would like to invite my colleagues from all the parties to support this amendment, which makes sense and puts the consumer at the forefront of the process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.