Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, both to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to the Federally Regulated Employers--Transportation and Communication.
First of all, Mr. Farrell, I have three remarks to make. The first one is that it's not a government initiative; it's a private member's bill. I think it's really important to understand what a private member's bill can do. As I am sure you already know, a private member's bill cannot call on any financial elements because it would require royal assent.
As you know, I initiated this bill, so I was therefore very severely restricted in what I could suggest. It is very clear to everyone in Parliament that if it is to make its way through Parliament, no private member's bill can in any way ask for royal assent. This goes against the rules.
Nonetheless, the elements you presented are important. I would suggest that if this private member's bill eventually finds its way into the current legislation, there is a lot of work to be done subsequently. I would certainly look forward to doing that kind of work. But this private member's bill could in no way touch that. I was limited by this.
Those are elements I wanted to bring up.
Mr. Langtry, in your presentation you mentioned abolishing mandatory retirement in safety-sensitive occupations. I felt that was extremely important in your presentation, and I thought it segued very nicely into Mr. Farrell's presentation. It's the way I thought of the private member's bill as well.
I would like to touch on another point. When I studied this I was made aware that notwithstanding the fact that two former Air Canada pilots had won their case before the tribunal and before the courts, if other Air Canada pilots want to work beyond the age of 60, the whole process would have to be undertaken by those people. The court's decision and the tribunal's decision—correct me if I am wrong—apply only to those two people.
Could you explain why that is so?