Thank you very much, Monsieur Dufault. Merci beaucoup. I have a couple of questions to start, if I could.
To put this in context, you're going to be given some pretty major mandate-expanding responsibilities under this bill, from what I can gather. Maybe they're not as expanding as I assume them to be. But I just want to set that context before I ask you a couple of questions, because I have a remaining fear that you may or may not be able to handle the responsibilities that are being transferred to you. Maybe you can address that, any of you, in your remarks to me and my colleagues to help allay that fear.
I have a couple of specific questions.
First of all, how would the CTA determine airline airfare clarity regulations? How would you determine they were necessary or not necessary in Canadian society, given what the bill is compelling you to do?
Secondly, I want to go to the question of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Mr. Hood, the former commissioner--the former NHL referee as well--eventually ascertained that the ATCC was more than simply a complaints process; it had become a place for advocacy. He has been very critical of the notion that we would remove the independence of the commissioner and have it inserted into a regulatory agency. It reminds me a little bit of law societies, which are at once supposed to be governing the profession while disciplining the profession and at the same time promoting the profession.
I'm just trying to get my head around an average member of the public with a problem. If it's inside the CTA, will the public know if there's a trend? Will the public know that there are fifteen complaints of the same kind going to the CTA, as they might have through the independent Air Travel Complaints Commissioner, for example?
Those are my two points. First, when do you think airline airfare clarity regulations will be necessary? Second is the question of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner and its being embedded in the CTA.