Kevin Lamoureux

“Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am too pleased to rise today to speak about air passengers’ rights, because this bill constitutes a step backward. There is a real problem, and that is the copious amount of complaints that are being filed. Air travel complaints are a problem because the regulations are not clear. Airlines have three types of responsibilities: situations within the airline’s control, situations within the airline’s control but required for safety, and situations outside the airline’s control. It is the situations that are within the airline’s control but not necessarily required for safety that are causing problems. For example, when an evening flight is cancelled due to unscheduled maintenance and rescheduled to the next morning, is that the airline’s fault or not? This is problematic, and seems to happen a lot in Rouyn-Noranda. Passengers might be wondering how a company that operates just one flight a day can fail to have another plane available. It is a fair question. Under the regulations, however, passengers are not entitled to a refund. In 99% of cases, a passenger will file a complaint. We have also seen other examples in the media. For instance, airlines have been known to cancel a flight in order to reassign a plane to another flight and then claim it was due to unscheduled maintenance. The problem is that unscheduled maintenance should be exceptional cases and only occur during checks carried out right before departure. We do have an arbitration system. However, consumers are telling us that they do not trust the fact that an independent arbitrator will deal with their complaint. We are talking about the reforms set out in Bill C‑31. The arbitrator would not be truly independent because they would be paid by the airlines. The government will likely say that it is going to pick arbitrators it thinks are appropriate, but the bill does not clarify this. Under clause 349 of the bill, the Minister of Transport may designate a person as a person authorized to resolve specified complaints and may impose as part of the designation any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate. Therefore, if there is indeed a desire to have competent people in this respect, there is nothing in this bill to indicate that. There is no guarantee that these people will be evaluated or how they will be evaluated. The minister would simply make a decision. We know that decisions can be biased. I met with Air Canada representatives about this issue last week. I also understand their point of view. For them, having a significant backlog of complaints is harmful to their reputation. Even though Air Canada is experiencing its own issues, they also believe it is important to deal with these cases quickly with their customers. The proposed arbitration system exists elsewhere, including in Europe. It is not a bad system. However, why did the minister not draw up a list of independent arbitrators whose qualifications could have been vetted through hearings before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? That was a key part of the Bloc’s proposal. Why not simply remove division 17 of part 4 and have the matter reviewed by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? The minister rejected that proposal outright. Why not allow consumers to select their arbitrator from this list? At the very least, they would feel they had some agency in the process and were part of an impartial procedure. Furthermore, to ensure their independence, arbitrators should be paid by the government rather than by the airlines themselves. At the end of each year, based on the number of complaints filed against each carrier, the government could invoice the airline for reimbursement. This would create a degree of distance between the arbitrator and the airline. This is precisely why we are proposing to remove all clauses relating to this division from the bill. It is not because arbitration is necessarily a bad idea, but because it is obviously poorly thought out. I urge the government to revisit this division and introduce a separate bill on the subject. With buy-in from consumer advocacy groups, Air Canada, other airlines and other authorities, such a bill would ensure that we have a robust complaints mechanism that would work for everyone, including carriers and passengers. This can happen if there is the political will to make it happen, and if that political will is brought to bear at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would remind the House that, since April, we have been meeting in camera, bogged down in parliamentary procedure. As a new member of the committee, I am increasingly finding that its government members are completely lacking in good faith. To understand the problem I am talking about, I would point members to an excellent editorial by Stéphanie Grammond that appeared in La Presse on October 26. The title says it all: “Bowing Down to the Airline Companies”. The author discusses the complaints system overhaul. I will read a few excerpts from the article. I could read it all, because it describes the context, which is crucial. The article starts with a fairly attention-grabbing introduction:Stephen Harper, I cast thee out! For all his Liberal credentials, it is remarkable how closely [the current Prime Minister] resembles former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper on certain issues. Obviously, I do not disagree with that assessment. Just look at the environment, labour unions or indigenous populations. Ms. Grammond goes on to say that travellers will be the ones paying the price. The federal government is getting ready to transform the air passenger complaints system, which is riddled with problems. Flights cancelled or delayed, reservations over-booked, luggage lost, and the list goes on, leaving travellers on the hook when the airline refuses to compensate them. They can file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which came into force in Canada in 2019. Those regulations are fairly recent. They were introduced under the Liberals. However, because these regulations are “complex and ambiguous”, by Transport Canada’s own admission, they are triggering a flood of litigation. Unable to keep up with the volume of cases, the CTA is buried under a backlog of 97,000 complaints. We can all agree that there is a problem. As a result, customers have to wait two to three years before a decision is reached, which discourages people from asserting their rights. [Unfortunately] carriers are all too aware of that. They might be tempted to automatically reject compensation claims, especially since they do not have to pay any interest or penalties if the customer eventually wins their case before the CTA. We can all agree on the following. This flawed system needs to be reformed once and for all, but the solution Ottawa is proposing is not the way to go. The federal government wants to give airlines the right to choose and pay for their own private arbitrator to settle disputes with their customers. It feels like Ottawa is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Curiously, the federal government’s solution is modelled after a pilot project on private arbitration that Air Canada had announced back in April. Is this a case of insider trading? One has to wonder. It almost seems as if the airline industry whispered instructions into Ottawa’s ear. Too bad for the passengers! The Standing Senate Committee on Transport disagrees [with the government’s position]. It believes that carriers should not have the right to choose the private company that handles complaints filed against them. This would raise “concerns regarding independence, impartiality and conflicts of interest”, the committee stated in a report presented in early October. There are good reasons to be concerned, based on experience in the banking sector. In the 2010s, the banks had a bone to pick with the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI). The Harper government allowed them to set up their own independent complaint-handling body. This controversial decision led to all sorts of problems. An investigation showed that the independent arbitrator was slower, less efficient, and less accessible to customers. Increasing the number of arbitrators made the system inconsistent. It scattered expertise and drove up costs. It also created confusion among consumers, who no longer knew who to turn to. That is what we may end up repeating if we do not remove the provisions under division 17 of part 4 of the bill. Ultimately, Ottawa reversed course in 2024 by once again centralizing complaints at the OBSI. ...Ottawa is on the wrong track with this proposal, which it deliberately buried in an omnibus bill, Bill C‑31. According to the Senate committee, which did not get the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Transport, this regrettable practice reduces parliamentary scrutiny and public debate. On that note, I want to stress that the Bloc Québécois, with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, has put forward solutions, but those solutions have been ignored, and that is one of the major problems. Ultimately, passengers will probably be the ones who pay the price. The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to stand up for passengers.”