THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 3, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, please take a moment to review the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for preventing incidents related to sound feedback.
Please keep your earphones away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Their activation and deactivation will be controlled by the console operator.
Finally, avoid handling your earphones when the microphone is activated. Earphones must remain in your ears or be placed on the sticker provided for this purpose at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith, I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Hello. Senator Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Osler: Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca.
We are meeting today to continue our study on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, Budget 2025, Implementation Act number 1.
Today we will hear from officials, specifically on Division 28, which amends the Aeronautics Act.
With that, I would like to introduce, from Transport Canada, Félix Meunier, Director General, Civil Aviation, Safety and Security; from NAV CANADA, Anthony MacKay, Vice-President and Chief Safety and Quality Officer; from the Canadian Airport Transport Security Authority, CATSA, Lisa Hamilton, Vice-President, Corporate Services, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, TSB, Yoan Marier, Chair.
Thank you all for joining us today. We also have a number of other officials from Transport Canada, CATSA and the TSB. They are here to assist in answering any technical questions on this particular division. Should any of these officials be called to the table to answer questions, please state your name and title before you begin speaking.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I will now invite Mr. Meunier to give his opening remarks. Go ahead, sir.
[Translation]
Félix Meunier, Director General, Civil Aviation, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
[English]
My name is Félix Meunier, I’m Director General, Transport Canada Civil Aviation. Under my direction, Transport Canada Civil Aviation promotes the safety and security of the national air transportation system through its regulatory framework and oversight activities.
[Translation]
I am happy to appear before you tonight to highlight the plans for modernizing the Aeronautics Act included in Bill C-15.
[English]
Modernization is needed for several reasons. One is to restore and maintain Canada’s compliance with international standards; and the second is to ensure the minister has the tools needed to maintain and improve safe, secure, efficient and sustainable transportation.
The following represents our plan’s seven most substantial elements.
[Translation]
The first part is about updating the powers in relation to interim orders. This includes establishing a new power to make interim orders to act as temporary rules of conduct to give effect to international civil aviation standards. The act would also be updated to authorize the minister to make interim orders for a maximum period of one year—up from the current 14-day maximum—with the possibility of extending that period by up to two years, for a total of three years, with the approval of the Governor in Council.
[English]
The second pertains to performance-based regulations. This amendment would respond to observations by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to the minister regarding authorities surrounding performance-based regulations.
First, Bill C-15 is proposing an authority for the Governor-in-Council to make regulations that compel development, maintenance and compliance with internal policies and processes; and second, authority for the minister to direct corrections to an internal policy or to policy operations if there is a risk to safety or security.
[Translation]
The third part expands the existing vicarious liability framework. The bill proposes to update the vicarious liability framework to include air traffic service providers and registered maintenance organizations so that violations committed by staff members can be applied to their employer.
[English]
The fourth part modernizes the manner of service of documents. Right now, numerous requirements exist for the minister to provide documents personally or by registered or certified mail. Bill C-15 is proposing a general permission that the minister may serve any required document by electronic means.
[Translation]
The fifth part is a new security framework for drones and anti-drone technologies. Currently, the minister cannot permit law enforcement and other key security players to interfere with drones using anti-drone technologies to counter malicious or reckless operators who pose a threat to aviation safety. The bill includes amendments prohibiting interference with the operation of drones, pilots and crew members—unless authorized by the minister—and facilitating the responsible use of anti-drone technologies to legally intercept drones that pose a threat to the public or to critical facilities such as prisons.
[English]
The sixth is an update to limits for administrative monetary penalties and summary convictions. The current framework limits penalties and fines to $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations. The bill proposes new statutory limits allowing amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations introducing administrative monetary penalties and summary convictions with amounts of up to $150,000 for individuals and $1,500,000 for corporations.
[Translation]
The seventh and final part is a new regime for the voluntary provision of information related to aviation safety. Simply put, the Canadian industry has a substantial data and knowledge base that the minister cannot currently access and that could help inform risk-based decisions. The bill proposes a new framework to allow the minister to enter into voluntary agreements with different industry players for the provision of safety and security information. That framework would have no impact on other existing statutory obligations related to information sharing with other departments and agencies, including, obviously, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
The information provided would inform regulations and increase awareness of targeted surveillance and promotional activities regarding safety and security in Canada. This information would be protected from surveillance and disclosure, except in case of undue risk to security or if the information was obtained under other statutory obligations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Meunier.
[English]
Now, I would like to invite Mr. MacKay to give his opening remarks. Go ahead, sir.
Anthony MacKay, Vice-President and Chief Safety and Quality Officer, NAV CANADA: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear here today.
I am Anthony Mackay, Vice-President and Chief Safety and Quality Officer at NAV CANADA. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the amendments to the Aeronautics Act included in Bill C-15 and to provide clarity on how these changes intersect with our role as Canada’s private, not-for-profit, air navigation service provider.
As you may know, NAV CANADA is responsible for safely managing more than 18 million square kilometres of domestic and oceanic airspace. Our safety record is among the strongest in the world, supported by a mature safety management system, a deeply embedded reporting culture and close collaboration with Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, or TSB, and industry partners.
We view the amendments proposed in this bill through that lens: safety first and grounded in operational experience.
One of the most pragmatic changes, in our view, is the creation of a mechanism that protects the voluntary provision of safety information. This aligns with global best practices and is supportive of safety data sharing. Anything that encourages proactive reporting, deeper analysis and greater sectoral collaboration ultimately strengthens aviation safety. We support this direction and see it as a positive evolution of the framework.
In that same spirit, we support ensuring that voluntary information can be shared and made available to the TSB when needed, while remaining protected from public disclosure so that reporting remains open, candid and effective.
The amendments also expand the Minister of Transport’s authority to issue interim orders that give effect to international standards and agreements and extend the maximum duration of these orders from 14 days to up to one year, with further extension if approved by Governor-in-Council.
From our perspective, this provides Transport Canada with a more agile tool to effectively implement emerging standards and recommended practices. We recognize the intent to harmonize quickly with standards developed by credible international partners such as the International Civil Aviation Organization.
We anticipate that any use of interim orders that directly impacts air navigation services would involve early engagement with NAV CANADA, as has historically been the case.
Bill C-15 also updates the penalties for contravening a ministerial order from $25,000 per day to up to $1.5 million per day. To be clear, NAV CANADA has never contravened a ministerial order.
It is important that any future use of such orders fully considers the timeline and complexity of implementing changes to air traffic services, many of which require long planning horizons infrastructure investment, procedure development or regulatory documentation, such as would be the case with a mandated change, increase or restriction to our services.
We would also expect that any associated penalties take into account our not-for-profit status and the time frames realistically required to comply with a ministerial order. As always, we remain committed to working closely with Transport Canada to ensure any expectations are realistic, consultative and aligned with safety and operational feasibility.
Finally, the introduction of explicit vicarious liability for offences or violations committed by employees or representatives while acting on behalf of the organization largely reflects the principles already present in Canadian law. These amendments appropriately exclude certain offences tied to personal conduct outside the scope of employment, and they include a due diligence defence.
NAV CANADA already invests heavily in training, quality assurance and oversight, and to the extent that these amendments would apply to us, we consider them consistent with the expectations we place on ourselves in delivering safe, compliant air navigation services.
Mr. Chair, we are not here today to oppose these amendments. NAV CANADA understands that the intention behind them is to reflect in legislation the high standard that organizations like ours already set for themselves. Many of the changes strengthen the aviation safety framework, enhance transparency and align Canada more closely with international expectations.
NAV CANADA remains committed to maintaining a leading safety culture, supporting continuous improvement across the system and working constructively with Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, airlines, airports and all partners to ensure the safest possible environment for travellers and Canadians.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s important work. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.
I will now invite Ms. Hamilton to give her opening remarks. Go ahead, please.
Lisa Hamilton, Vice-President, Corporate Services, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Airport Transport Security Authority: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the invitation to be here today.
I am Lisa Hamilton, Vice-President, Corporate Services, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, otherwise known as CATSA. I am joined by Nancy Fitchett, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Chief Financial Officer; and Eric Fortier, General Manager of Corporate Affairs.
[Translation]
CATSA was the centrepiece of the Government of Canada’s response to the events of September 11, 2001. More specifically, the organization was established on April 1, 2002, to oversee and strengthen aviation security in Canada.
CATSA is a Crown corporation funded by parliamentary appropriations accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport and regulated by Transport Canada.
[English]
As you may already know, CATSA delivers the mandate of security screening at 89 designated airports across the country through a third-party screening contractor model. Playing a key role in Canada’s air transportation system, CATSA is responsible for the delivery of pre-board screening, hold-baggage screening, non-passenger screening and the management of restricted area identity card system.
Our mission is to protect the travelling public by providing the highest level of aviation security screening, while ensuring a positive client experience.
In closing, I’d be happy to answer any questions from the committee relating to Bill C-15, the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, and specifically, the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act that fall within CATSA’s purview. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hamilton. I invite Mr. Marier to give his opening remarks.
Yoan Marier, Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Chair and senators, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act under Bill C-15.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, or TSB, is an independent agency that investigates aviation, marine, pipeline, and railway transportation occurrences in the federal sector. Our mandate is to advance transportation safety by identifying the causes and contributing factors, and by communicating safety risks and recommendations. We do not assign fault, and we do not determine civil or criminal liability.
The TSB was established in 1990 under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, referred to as the CTAISB Act. Since that time, the transportation landscape has changed significantly, and expectations for safety oversight have evolved well beyond the environment in which the CTAISB Act was first introduced.
[Translation]
The TSB supports Transport Canada’s plan to introduce a voluntary reporting program for aviation safety. Stronger regulatory oversight has been a concern on our watch list for over a decade.
The amendments to the Aeronautics Act in Bill C-15 move us closer to addressing longstanding safety priorities, as they strengthen safety management systems and Transport Canada’s oversight capacity.
[English]
The proposed amendments lay the groundwork for a regime of voluntary reporting to TC and establish confidentiality rules with exceptions. While these changes are progressive, the TSB notes that the scope of two exceptions — proposed respectively in paragraph 5.32(d) and subparagraph 5.32(f)(ii) — could result in a missed opportunity to improve transportation safety by limiting the TSB’s access to full accident and incident data.
[Translation]
The TSB investigates not only accidents but also incidents and unsafe situations that could lead to accidents. “Near misses” offer valuable lessons for improving safety.
[English]
Under the TSB Regulations, serious accidents and specific types of incidents must be reported to the TSB. Additionally, per section 22(1) of the CTAISB Act, where a federal department is notified of a transportation occurrence, which includes both accidents and incidents that the TSB has the power to investigate, any department, including TC, must provide the TSB with particulars of the occurrence.
So currently, the proposed section 5.32(d) in the act allows TC to disclose information obtained through voluntary reporting when disclosure is required under an act of Parliament. This ensures TC can notify the TSB of both accidents and incidents as mandated by the CTAISB Act.
By contrast, section 5.32(f)(ii) permits the disclosure of information relating to contraventions of the Aeronautics Act involving accidents that must be reported under the CTAISB Act. It’s a narrower scope that excludes incidents, and also occurrences that do not involve Aeronautics Act contraventions, all of which are critical to learning safety lessons.
The wording of section 5.32(f)(ii) could be interpreted as restricting TC’s ability to share incident information with the TSB. This could lead to uncertainty about what information can be disclosed to the TSB.
[Translation]
We ask that the amendments to the Aeronautics Act permit the TSB to receive information concerning all accidents and incidents known to federal departments that the TSB has the power to investigate.
[English]
If TC does not communicate all incident information obtained through voluntary reporting, the TSB may be unaware of details surrounding occurrences.
To address these concerns, the committee could consider amending clause 475 of Bill C-15 to provide clear authority for TC to disclose information for the purpose of notifying the TSB of information regarding aviation accidents and incidents.
The TSB will continue to fulfill its mandate independently and professionally. The more information that we have, the better we can do our job, which is to advance transportation safety for all Canadians. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute this perspective to the committee’s work. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now move on to questions from senators.
I would like to advise senators that you will have approximately 5 minutes each for the first round. We will have a second round of questions, if time permits.
[English]
If you wish to ask a question, please alert our clerk. We will add your name to the list. I will invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. This material is somewhat new to me and the committee so I’m very interested in these changes.
I will start with Mr. Marier. When we hear about voluntary reporting versus mandatory reporting, it immediately brings to mind possible issues with voluntary reporting and how people might miss incidents or the voluntary aspect of it might seem a bit problematic.
I wonder if you could drill down a bit more and explain what it is that is voluntary about the reporting and what types of incidents come under the voluntary umbrella versus a mandatory umbrella. Just explain it to me in terms that I might understand as a traveller or a concerned citizen.
Mr. Marier: Well, I will give you my perspective as chair of the TSB, but I suspect my colleague from Transport Canada can complete my response.
At the Transportation Safety Board, there are two types of reports that we get; there are mandatory reports and voluntary reports. A mandatory report is something that an air operator, for instance, has to report to the TSB, an accident, a loss of separation. It is something mandatory that they have to report under the TSB regulations. It is mandated. We also have voluntary reporting, which is something that people can report, but they are not obligated to report it. It could be safety concerns, something that they have observed from a safety perspective they think is preoccupying. That would be a voluntary report. We have our own voluntary reporting system that is called SECURITAS. Somebody, for instance, who works on the ramp at an airport and observes a situation on the ramp that could be problematic could be voluntarily reported even though it is not mandated.
Senator Dasko: They would see some transgression or something?
Mr. Marier: Correct. That could be a voluntary report. We have our own reporting system called SECURITAS.
Senator Dasko: If someone set a fire on a runway would be a voluntary report?
Mr. Marier: We would have to look at the regulations to see what is mandated and what is not mandated then becomes voluntary. Transport Canada, through their changes to the Aeronautics Act, is implementing their own voluntary reporting system to collect information about safety and security incidents.
Senator Dasko: So what isn’t mandated is voluntary. Under regulations, you’ve got the mandated activity.
Mr. Marier: From the TSB’s perspective, yes.
Senator Dasko: And then everything else is voluntary?
Mr. Marier: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Mr. MacKay, when I was listening to your presentation, I couldn’t help but wonder why some of what’s in here is not covered under regulations and would not need to be in an amendment to the act. Can you explain why many of the activities that you’ve mentioned aren’t actually under regulations and why there would be a requirement for amendments?
Mr. MacKay: So from a regulatory perspective, I would look to Transport Canada. They set the regulation and they are our regulator. As NAV CANADA, with an operating certificate and granted the licence to operate the airspace by Transport Canada, we must meet all of their regulatory requirements.
Where we’re very interested in voluntary incident reporting and accident reporting, this very much picks up issues, whether it’s a controller, a flight service specialist or a pilot. There are errors that are made every day, minor errors. When people feel safe to report, they will report those to the company. From that, we can draw trends and observations because all of those minor errors could eventually lead to a more major incident. When people feel safe to report, they will report. Having this change to the Aeronautics Act brings Transport Canada into what is already the industry tent.
As an industry of air carriers, as the air navigation service provider, or ANSP, we do share this voluntary information, but everybody is reticent to provide it to their regulator unless it is protected because it needs to be vetted, it needs to be thought through so that it can be formulated into an actionable item.
Senator Dasko: But does everyone understand the biases against voluntary reporting, which would be significant? If there were a transgression on the part of an individual, there would be a bias against reporting. How do you deal with those?
Mr. MacKay: In today’s environment, even under the safety management system, we have a principle called the Just Culture Policy. Within our own company, the Just Culture requirements do form part of the safety management system regulations for Transport Canada. They do actually protect the individual from punitive actions by the company. Again, from a company or industry perspective, the Just Culture activities cover that. The only time that you would be excluded from that Just Culture-type event would be in showing willful disregard for the regulation or criminal intent or if you were operating under the influence or something like that. Most companies have three or four key envelopes by which you are excluded from the Just Culture principle.
If we carry this through, our air carriers, we as an ANSP, in our Just Culture environment, we already have that voluntary reporting. This change to the Aeronautics Act then gives us comfort in sharing it directly with a regulator, instead of a more finished product at the end.
Senator Wilson: I have a couple of questions. The first is probably best directed to Mr. Meunier. Mr. Marier made specific observations in terms of the amendments that the committee could consider in order to improve TSB’s access to information. I would be interested in Transport Canada’s perspective on those suggestions.
Mr. Meunier: Thank you, Senator Wilson. From our perspective, as Mr. MacKay noted, the root of this is actually an element of safety culture. We think that voluntary provision of information will help the positive safety culture across the aviation sector in Canada. It is anchored on good practices that we have seen in other regulators.
As the provision has noted, this is voluntary. We want to make sure that this element of culture transpires across the organization.
I will be clear with this committee, and for the record, that the provisions in here don’t decrease the amount of information that TSB currently has under its authorities. As Mr. Marier noted, the provisions in clause 5.32 prescribe that if information is required under the CTAISB Act, as well as the underlying provisions, nothing is being protected under that. An operator would have to disclose to the TSB as part of that.
From our perspective, more conversations will be required with the TSB and our legal departments to ensure we have a proper understanding between both organizations with respect to the act. As Mr. Marier noted, the TSB is independent. For us, there is no intent to influence the TSB with respect to this. The TSB acts under the guidance and requirements of the international standards and practice from International Civil Aviation Organization, the ICAO, that extra team. That independence has to be cherished and protected.
From our perspective, we want to maximize uptake by operators, by NAV CANADA-approved maintenance organizations and airports to disclose.
Clause 5.32(a) allows for written consent to actually disclose outside Transport Canada. That said, from our perspective — coming back to your question, Senator Wilson — there is no intent to decrease the amount of information that TSB has. We actually need the TSB to have the proper information to do its investigations. That is something we very much care about.
As for the next step, with respect to after the bill passes, we will be working with the private sector operators, NAV CANADA, as well as the TSB, on what those individual agreements should contain to ensure the data will be, yes, protected, but also used to enhance the safety culture across the country and, at the same time, to support TCMS and the TSB. Thank you, senator.
Senator Wilson: I will follow up on that. Very specifically, though, the proposed or suggested potential amendments are not required for that to happen. That dialogue and those changes can happen in discussion between Transport Canada and the TSB?
Mr. Meunier: That is our understanding, senator.
Senator Wilson: I have a personal curiosity. I am not sure if this is for Mr. Meunier or Mr. MacKay. I am interested in how widespread the drone problem is. What will these legislative changes do to solve it? What is that like for recreational users? What will their experience be like?
Mr. Meunier: This is a very novel problem, Senator Wilson. If you go a public event here on Parliament Hill, as you know, it is a protected zone where drones cannot fly without authorization from the PPS or the RCMP.
Different tools are available for police forces to actually take down drones that could be a threat. Right now, there is no legal authority for them to be able to do that. The purpose here is actually to provide police forces with a proper framework and authorization and training and technology to take down those drones in a safe way and, in essence, to protect aviation safety and avoid a system where there is no regulation for how to take down those drones.
This could affect recreational flyers who are flying in areas that are not suitable for recreational flying. Parliament Hill is one example. We have others across the country where there is critical infrastructure, prisons, large gatherings. In those types of occurrences, a proper framework is needed for police forces to safely take action against drones.
Mr. MacKay: Thank you for the question. When it comes to commercial or recreational flyers, NAV CANADA’s responsibility is to protect the safety of conventional aviation at the same time as the drones are trying to grow and expand their work.
To that end, we have applications whereby drone operators can automatically enter their details and be granted an authorization to fly in a certain volume of airspace right away, or they will be told, if they are close to an airport or other restricted area, then a second level of approval is required. But our primary role is to ensure that conventional aircraft can operate within their airspace safely and not have the possibility of colliding with a small drone.
Senator Simons: Thank you. As somebody who flies all the time, I’m really grateful for everything your agencies do to make sure that I am landing safely.
My first question is about the really large increase in fines that Mr. MacKay mentioned. Clause 478 proposes to amend subsections 7.3(3.1) to (5.1) regarding the penalties for an individual, which used to max out at $5,000, and for a corporation, which used to max out at $25,000, now have a maximum of $1.5 million. For NAV CANADA, the fine goes from $25,000 a day to $1.5 million per day if the offence continues.
That is an extraordinary increase. Why has there been such a huge increase in fines; what kind of scenario would be proportionate to a fine of that magnitude? That is for Mr. Meunier.
Mr. Meunier: Sorry, senator, I thought your question was directed to Mr. MacKay.
From an enforcement standpoint, the opportunity to increase the amount of the administrative penalties is a good idea since the amounts currently enshrined in law date back to before 2003. They’ve been aging without increases since then.
I will note, senator, that this is an enabling legislation. Any changes to the administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs as we call them, would have to be changed following the passage of the bill and Royal Assent, and it would have to change in the annex of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations.
Would all the provisions of the regulations apply to $1.5 million maximum AMP? The answer to that question is, no, of course. I think that the $1.5 million that you take for the organization is the worst-case scenario for the worst type of offence for the most critical safety elements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
What you can expect from Transport Canada if the bill passes and gets Royal Assent is that Transport Canada will bring a package to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to update the amount of AMPs that are more proportional to their criticality and there would be a second step that would be required before any of those AMPs take effect. What the legislation does is put an up-to amount for the worst case of the most safety critical article of the regulations.
Senator Simons: You are giving yourself room to grow like when your mother used to buy your pants too long for you on the basis that, by the end of fourth grade, they would fit.
I have a question not necessarily related to the BIA but to a passion project of mine. In clause 467, you have greatly simplified the definition of “screening.” This is a question for Mr. Meunier and for Ms. Hamilton. The definition of screening used to be much longer and specifically enumerated all of the things that you could screen, and now, it is a more general understanding that screening is screening. You don’t enumerate all of those different things that you could screen. Then, in clause 468, you talk about requiring security management systems. Now, we come to my hobby horse.
I have a motion before the Senate that is designed to encourage the government to create a standalone, made-in-Canada verified traveller program. Because right now we piggyback on NEXUS and use a NEXUS card as a proxy for a Canadian security screening. But that means that you have to go through Homeland Security if you want to be a frequent flyer within Canada and just transit through Canadian airports in what I call the “good line.” That means that if you are trans or gender non-binary, you cannot get security clearance. It also means that if you are francophone and you have to submit to English-language interview, you may be precluded from getting that security screening.
Mr. Meunier and Ms. Hamilton, what you would think about the idea of creating a standalone Canadian program for Canadians travelling in Canadian airports that didn’t require American Homeland Security to do the screening, that we would just do the screening ourselves as we already do for half of the NEXUS pass holders?
Mr. Meunier: I can start, then I can turn it over to Ms. Hamilton afterwards. The role of Transport Canada in that standalone system, senator, is actually quite limited. What we do from a Transport Canada standpoint is that we are the regulator for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, and provide direction for CATSA in terms of how to do the screening for the verified traveller lines that are in some airports, not all airports, obviously. Our role is related to that and to make sure that the algorithms used in the screening machines are proper for the proportional risk with respect to the people using that line, which is, as you know, a lower risk than from the general line.
That is about the extent of Transport Canada’s involvement. I think that your question is actually probably more relevant to the Department of Public Safety, and maybe CATSA has an additional perspective to share on that matter.
Ms. Hamilton: Thank you for the question.
With respect to the current program, CATSA, as my colleague from Transport Canada has indicated, is regulated to conduct screening in accordance with the regulations. In order to receive authorization to differentiate screening for an individual class of passengers, that does have to be stipulated by Transport Canada within the context of the regulatory reform. The class of individuals that are eligible for our Verified Traveller program right now is not within the purview of CATSA to decide those classes of individuals and that would be subject to regulatory reform.
Senator Simons: You see what I mean? It seems odd to me that if you are an American, you can get a Verified Traveller equivalent without getting a NEXUS card. Only Canada requires a foreign country, which does not necessarily share our security protocols, to verify. We provide no capacity for a Canadian who does not want to submit their biometric data to the Donald Trump’s Homeland Security apparatus to become a trusted traveller. There is no way for somebody who uses an X rather than an M or F on their identity card to become a trusted traveller. There is no way for a unilingual francophone to become a trusted traveller.
Don’t you think it would be better for the functioning of Canadian airports if there were a way for Canadians to be validated as trusted travellers without requiring Donald Trump’s blessing?
The Chair: Well.
Senator Simons: It seems to me that under clause 468, if we’re going to create classes of persons with aviation security responsibilities to develop and document security management systems and to keep them up to date, this might be a way to do that.
Mr. Meunier: The only thing that I can say, senator, is from a Transport Canada perspective, our roles are limited to providing CATSA direction — for a traveller that is at lower risk, CATSA’s screeners are trained and perform the screening that is expected from that line item in the algorithm.
Senator Simons: Could you not, as Transport Canada working in conjunction with Canadian Border Services Agency — I mean it was Transport Canada who decided how the Verified Traveller program would be structured. It was the Minister of Transport who decided to use the NEXUS program as a proxy. What I’m asking is for Transport Canada to consider the wisdom of a system that is unattached to Donald Trump’s particular form of Homeland Security apparatus.
Mr. Meunier: The only thing that I can say is that I was not planning to talk about U.S. politics today, and I hope that you will forgive me for not talking about it.
That said, what I can take as an action item is to discuss with my colleagues at Public Safety Canada what they think would be within the realm of possibility. That said, this would be outside of the purview of civil aviation, per se. We would have to work with Public Safety on that matter.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: All the questions I had were already asked by my colleagues.
Further to what Senator Simons mentioned, as a francophone, I had to be interviewed in English to get my NEXUS card. I pretended to be from France and said that I had a very thick accent but did speak a bit of English. I passed. I was just kidding.
When we think about the act, we think of everything that is up in the air—planes, drones—but also of the infrastructure on the ground. Of course, you all have a part to play in the implementation of this act, considering the amendments. You mentioned several data points, the sharing of information and confidentiality. When accidents occur, we know that the speed at which information is shared by the different sectors is crucial. How will the amendments to the act help with the speed at which information is shared while maintaining its confidentiality? I don’t know if it’s a fair question, but it’s the one that comes to mind when I think of all the proposed amendments.
Mr. Meunier: Thank you, Senator Cormier.
As a senator, you often have to travel by plane. Planes departing on time require a little bit of magic. Many different moving parts have to align to make it happen. Mechanics have to make sure the plane is in flying order, the cabin crew has to be good, the airport has to have a gate available and CATSA has to perform its screening operations.
This year marks the 81st anniversary of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, the only United Nations organization based in Canada, in Montreal.
Over the ICAO’s 80-year existence, air travel fatality rates have gone down by more than 99%. There is something amazing in the fact that everywhere in the world, even on a flight from Montreal to, say, Angola, the captain will always be sitting on the left and the co-pilot on the right, and the air navigation rules for transoceanic flight will be the same, no matter which air traffic controller is directing traffic. Then, once the plane lands in Angola, the rules on the ground will be the same as everywhere else. In a world where we often disagree on things, the fact that we managed to agree and make sure everyone speaks the same language is sort of magical.
When we talk about ways to work together to improve aviation safety, maybe sharing data and improving information systems is the door that hasn’t been opened yet or the fruit that’s waiting to be picked.
There’s something to be said for strengthening the safety culture across the country and making sure that people can communicate and that we can obtain data from other organizations that play a major role in aviation safety. We can fine-tune our surveillance procedures, our surveillance interval, and see if there’s something about operations over high mountains. We can then pull the data out and send it to high-mountain operators and confirm that they’re good safety practices that smaller operators maybe haven’t thought of. But if we have enough data to put the pieces of the puzzle together and see what makes sense for flying over high mountains, we can make that data available and help even small-scale operators improve their safety culture. That would raise the bar for everyone. That is the sort of thing we have in mind with the amendments.
Mr. Marier: At the TSB, information is at the core of everything we do. Collecting information on accidents to make sure they never happen again is what we do every single day. Accessing this information is vital for us. During our investigations, information comes from Transport Canada, NAV CANADA, the operators—many different sources. We try to be as transparent as possible about the information that we receive and use in our investigation reports. We try to be as transparent as possible.
That being said, we recognize that keeping the data we collect confidential and aggregated may be very beneficial. We understand that operators may not want to see the name of their business mentioned. We recognize the benefits in collecting data in a confidential manner. The TSB should have access to this information to improve transportation safety, and data should be flowing from Transport Canada to the TSB to ensure that we have access to it to improve aviation safety.
Senator Cormier: You don’t have the system?
Mr. Marier: We do. It’s just that the new voluntary transmission system proposed by Transport Canada will add a layer of confidentiality to the reports that it will receive on a voluntary basis. We don’t want that layer of confidentiality to prevent the sharing of information between them and us, because we need that information to improve safety.
[English]
Mr. MacKay: To add a practical example, Transport Canada currently has an active group called Collaborative Analysis Groups. It’s quite amazing when you’re in this meeting and you have air carriers, competitors in the commercial sphere, us as the air navigation service provider and, in the safety realm, we are all laying bare all of our errors, things that have happened and aggregating that.
When we have an accident, we look back and we say, “We should have seen that coming.” If you go back through that data, you can actually pick through it and find what that trigger was, that cause. With that Collaborative Analysis Group, currently — all of us as industry — we are aggregating our data and telling Transport Canada here’s where the issue is.
With this protection, we want to bring Transport Canada into that initial discussion so we can share with them our raw data and have them there as part of that conversation. That’s probably the most practical, current, in-force example that we have today.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Many of the questions I had have already been asked.
I’ll try to get into the issue of fines in a bit more detail. I read through the material that was provided to us, and I understand that fines for companies were too low. Companies viewed them as a minor expense. The fines that you issue when there’s a violation or a contravention are too low. What can you tell someone like me, who doesn’t work in an airport, about the kinds of repeat violations that are committed by the companies that pay these very low fines? What should we be worried about?
Mr. Meunier: Thank you for the question, Senator Miville-Dechêne.
All the fines we issue are posted on our website. There is a mix of different fines issued to individuals for failure to comply with a navigation order.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand. Bad passengers.
Mr. Meunier: One of the key aspects of the act that we haven’t touched upon tonight is the concept of performance-based regulations, where the goal of the act is to ensure that maintenance organization manuals are approved by the regulator before being implemented by the maintenance organizations. If organizations fail to adhere to their manuals, it is a violation not of regulations, but of their own manuals. The goal of the act is to make sure that failure by these organizations to comply with their own procedures or manuals would be actionable by Transport Canada. That would be my answer to the first part of your question about why accountability on performance-based regulations is important. We want to ensure companies are accountable for their manuals and also, to your other point, be held vicariously liable. That’s the first aspect.
Regarding repeat violations, we use an incremental law enforcement approach. Typically, for a first violation, a business or individual would get a verbal or written warning. We never choose to maximize fines. Our goal is to make sure that people go back to following the regulations in a safe manner. That is always our first objective.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If you change the law, it’s because not enough people are—
Mr. Meunier: Compared to other regulations-style acts such as the Pilotage Act or the Radiocommunication Act, the fines are much higher than what would be expected.
As I believe Mr. MacKay said in his opening statement, the goal is not for NAV CANADA to collect more fines, but to make sure that the fines are in line with what could happen in the worst-case scenario. Based on our analysis, we believe the maximum amount set out in the act should be increased.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m trying to understand the interim orders issue. That’s new, if I understand correctly? What exactly is new about that? Previously, amending regulations was a very lengthy process. Explain to me in simple and concrete terms what that would change.
Mr. Meunier: There’s already a section about interim orders in the act. Some of the elements are already there. Interim orders can be made for health and safety reasons. The minister has made such orders before in certain situations.
For example, when the drone industry boomed about 10 years ago, there were no regulations. The minister ended up having to regulate this new technology. He used an interim order to cover the risks of collision between drones and airplanes. Every 14 days, the minister had to sign a new interim order identical to the one he made 14 days prior. That tool was not well suited to what the minister had to do.
Eventually, new regulations were approved by the Treasury Board and the Governor in Council and published in Part 9 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The change was made to allow the minister to make interim orders for one year and the Governor in Council to extend them for another two years.
Generally, this is more in line with the Treasury Board framework for approving new regulations. The new addition allows the minister to enshrine standards and practices issued and recommended by the ICAO—and therefore already negotiated with stakeholders and other ICAO member countries—using ministerial orders. This wasn’t the case before. Afterwards, it goes through the regulatory process.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And this is kept up-to-date?
Mr. Meunier: Yes, updates happen more quickly because we’re not non-compliant with the ICAO while the regulatory process is ongoing. It is very rare for the Treasury Board to change a standard that was already negotiated with 193 member countries.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I believe my question is best directed to Mr. Meunier of Transport Canada, but anyone else can answer. I’m going to go back to the drones.
As you all know, multiple sites in Europe have reported mysterious drones over airports, power plants, military sites. For example, several European airports had to close or suspend operations for periods of time. And in most, if not all, the situations, I think the drones penetrated airspace and then left fairly quickly.
So my question is regarding 479, section 7.42, the authorization for interference. I’ll read it to you:
The Minister may, on any terms that the Minister considers appropriate, authorize any person or class of persons to interfere with the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system or with the performance of the duties of any crew member or any remotely piloted aircraft system if the issuance of authorization is, in the Minister’s opinion, in the public interest or necessary for aviation safety or security.
First, how would that be authorized? If the minister deems that it’s necessary to interfere, do those lines of communication already exist, say, between the minister’s office to call municipal police forces, province police forces or RCMP? Because it has to be done in a fast, timely manner. As you see in Europe, the drones go in, they go out, no one knows where they came from.
Second, is “necessary for aviation safety or security” just aviation? What if there are, say, drones over a power plant or a water reservoir, that’s not aviation safety or security but it is national security. So again, this is for Mr. Meunier, or anyone else who would like to answer.
Mr. Meunier: I will add a couple things. Thank you, senator, for that question.
Budget 2023 actually provided funding to Transport Canada and the RCMP to develop a counter-drone strategy. What you see today is a bit of the results of the decisions made in Budget 2023 when we consulted National Defence and RCMP to what would be the proper legislative tools for us to be able to manage a counter-drone strategy.
I would note a couple things. First, there is already a delegation — I’m trying to remember the exact number of police forces, I think it’s around 15 or so across the country that have the delegation to say on the spot, take action against a drone because the police force in the jurisdiction determines there is an immediate issue with respect to a misbehaviour by a drone.
The purpose of the way this was worded was first to actually make sure that the language aligns with the Aeronautics Act mandate, which is about aviation safety and security. We have to make sure that it aligns with the overall purpose of the act. That said, I can say that we are aware of some critical infrastructure, which you have noted in your remarks, and we think some of the technologies that we are considering that could perhaps be suitable in other instances as well.
What we want to avoid is an approach where an organization, a company that is in the business of taking down drones, has a technology that is so powerful that it could actually impact higher aviation, general aviation. We want to make sure that it’s proportional to the action we want to be taking, it is circumscribed and it’s safe; maybe that’s the link perhaps that you can see with respect to aviation safety and security. We want to make sure that, yes, the drone is managed appropriately, but there is no impact on NAV CANADA’s system, there is no impact on higher-level aviation that could be in the vicinity. So you can perhaps see a link with that in my answer.
Senator Osler: Thank you, sir.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here tonight. Honestly, I don’t know that there are any questions left, but drones do seem to be a preoccupation.
In light of these hugely increased fees, I would hate to think that someone unknowingly got in trouble. Is it even possible to just mistakenly do something wrong with a drone?
Mr. Meunier: Maybe, senator, I can answer that question with an image I often use in the department is that for drone pilots that don’t respect the rules there are three Cs, as we call them. There are the clueless that have no idea that there is actually a regulation associated with drones and they shouldn’t interfere with aviation. There are the careless, those that know and say, “I am going to gamble and try to do it anyway.” And there are criminal minds. So I think some of the proposals here with respect to the counter drone are not so much there to affect the clueless because for the clueless people, you can just go and see that person and say, “I’m going to ask you to, please, bring your drone back.” It is designed for other types of incidents that are of a higher importance. Maybe that’s how I can answer your question, senator.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Senator Mohamed: I may be really off base here, but one of the things that occurred to me was unruly behaviour onboard aircraft; everyone here has seen that video where everyone else is taping everyone else and there are really bad characters on planes. Those aren’t the unknowing; those are just badly behaved individuals.
So if you think about the fines that are being increased, I think about what my colleague was saying, how do people know?
The idea of the increased fines is to deter people, yes? How do you properly communicate this as a deterrent for people who may consider I don’t want to spend $1.5 million or $150,000 if I do something, understanding it would be scaled up to get to that point?
How do you communicate to people? Is it a deterrent when you communicate to people? Part of that is, if you look at the last five years, how many incidents have there been to warrant this kind of ramp-up? Give us an idea of what that looks like if you wouldn’t mind, please.
Mr. Meunier: I would have to get back to you on the exact stats. However, Mr. MacKay noted earlier the Collaborative Analysis Group that Transport Canada chairs.
This element of unruly passengers was perhaps one of the top three elements that came up as a risk to aviation safety as identified by the group.
That said, as you’ve correctly noted, the answer to this problem is on several fronts. Yes, there could be tactics, de-escalation that can be used by the cabin crew. Yes, there is additional information that would have to be provided, and obviously additional admonishment, monetary penalties up to — is actually part of the recipe that I think we use as part of a communication product. I think one of the big drivers for those increased fines was actually the trend under unruly behaviour.
I’m sure the committee will meet representatives of air operators and you will probably hear that from them in terms of the cost of a diversion. Costs by an unruly passenger is in the thousands of dollars for an air operator because of the delays associated with the flight. Then sometimes the crew times out with respect to the time it takes. It has a ripple effect.
Yes, some of the unruly passengers can be charged under the Criminal Code, but this is to add additional tools that would actually hopefully help reduce the number of unruly passengers in Canada. It’s part of the mix of what we think would be helpful. Thank you.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you.
The Chair: Perhaps I could ask you a question on division 28, part 5 of the Aeronautics Act. In what circumstances might the Minister of Transport need to use the new powers rather than the usual regulatory processes to make interim orders that give effect to international standards, agreements, conventions and arrangements?
Mr. Meunier: I can take that, Senator Smith. Thank you very much for the question.
I want to say a few times a month there are new standards for recommended practices that come from the International Civil Aviation Organization. Canada doesn’t exactly have discretion with respect to the timeline that is set by the ICAO to actually bring some of those standard recommended practices in force. Sometimes the timeline can be six months or a year.
For us to go through an amendment to the Canadian Aviation Regulations, put it through against that one process, consultation, and then due process will take around two to two and a half years, give or take.
You can imagine many of the provisions stemming from the ICAO would be pertinent. Sometimes we have enough lead time to do it through the regular process. That said, if the bill passes, even if the minister would be able to take interim orders, those amendments would have to go through a Treasury Board process during those three years.
The international norms coming from the ICAO would be the prime example I think, senator, in terms of why the minister would be able to use that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I wanted to ask about vicarious liability, which Mr. MacKay mentioned. In the act, there are new sections that appear to establish that a person can be held liable for a violation if their employee or agent commits an illegal act, regardless of whether that individual is identified or prosecuted. It seems to be sufficient for the prosecution to prove the act was committed by a representative of the accused person, but not to prove that the accused directed the action.
I’m wondering, Mr. Meunier, if you could talk a little bit about why the vicarious liability conditions are structured that way and, Mr. MacKay, if you wanted to talk about what that might mean for a regulated agency such as NAV CANADA.
Mr. Meunier: Thank you, Senator Simons, for this question. I will leave Mr. MacKay to speak about what it means for one of the operators to comment on.
On vicarious liability, we have over 700 inspectors across the country, and every time I speak to them, this is something that they feel is important for them to be able to do their job properly. Sometimes they find non-compliance with an approved maintenance organization. An AME, for example, would have incorrectly signed a maintenance release for a part. But the individual followed the procedure of the company. It doesn’t seem fair to take it against the AME who signed based on the procedures of the company correctly, but the problem was elsewhere.
If we have to go against the approved maintenance organization, we should be able to do that if the procedures are improperly designed.
That said, in the current system, the enforcement action would be against the individual. This act actually makes the accountability reside where it should be.
Senator Simons: At one point a pilot could be held vicariously liable for malfeasance by members of his crew.
Mr. Meunier: I think there is a specific provision with respect to that. That said, the captain of the aircraft is not responsible for the cabin crew. There’s an element with respect to that which is that they’re not regulated the same way.
Maybe I’ll ask Mr. MacKay to comment from a NAV CANADA perspective on what this concept of vicarious liability means to them.
Mr. MacKay: The way that we understand the amendment is it does clarify that organizational accountability and not focusing on the individual punishment.
Again, a practical example is there are items that fall under aviation that are very much a dual responsibility. As an example, one of those would be the maintenance of an expiry date on a license or a medical certificate. The individual holds responsibility to ensure they’re qualified through their licensing and medical to act in that position. The company also holds a responsibility to ensure its people are also licensed. That’s the way we see this carrying over.
Senator Simons: It doesn’t give you pause or concern?
Mr. MacKay: No.
Senator Simons: To the contrary, okay, it provides clarity.
Now I have a question for Ms. Hamilton. I’m coming back to my hobby horse.
In my work on this topic about the Canadian traveller pass, of one the things we have heard from the airport council a concern that when they’re figuring out how to deploy their CATSA workers, that if not enough people are going through the verified traveller line, it doesn’t make sense for them to staff that line.
People who travel through the Ottawa international airport often will know that that airport only has its NEXUS line open, it’s verified traveller line, open for rush hours and the rest of the time the line is closed, which sometimes creates problems for travellers who expected not to have to decant all of their shampoo bottles and toothpaste.
I know it is outside the purview of what we are talking about, but I will cling to the sections I cited earlier to ask you, from CATSA’s perspective, how do those deployment decisions get made? Are those made by the airport authority? Are those made by CATSA? Who is deciding which lines are open, when, and where to deploy the CATSA resources?
Ms. Hamilton: Thank you, senator, for your question.
I can answer this at a reasonably high level, because it’s not my area of expertise at CATSA. But I can assure you that it is CATSA, in conjunction with its screening contractors who are third-party service delivery model, anticipates, forecasts, schedules and deploys the staff, the screening officers at the checkpoints. And we do so based on predicted demands, flight schedules and things like that.
In terms of making a decision on what lines are open based on demand at that particular hour, day, week, that is within the responsibility of CATSA. We do that through modelling in order to achieve a wait time service-level target of 95% of passengers screened within 15 minutes or less at the busiest airports across the country. We achieved that in the past year. We met a 97% target.
Senator Simons: That is very good and a pleasant change from what it was a couple of years ago right after the COVID peak where the lines were long indeed. As someone who travels a lot, I have seen the benefit of that.
There was some discussion today about people who might accidentally be found in contravention. My staff pulled up an example for me that says:
No person shall have in their possession a hand-held laser with a power output rating greater than 1 milliwatt
(a) in the municipalities of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver regions . . . or
(b) within a 10-km radius of the geometric centre of an airport or heliport.
It is an odd clause because it suggests that you could have one of these things if you live in Winnipeg or Halifax but not if you live in Toronto, and I do not know how many people know whether they are within a 10-kilometre radius of the geometric centre of an airport. Not to be “gotcha” about this, but it does seem that there is a potential for people to do things that may be legitimately dangerous to air safety without understanding the consequences of their actions.
Mr. Meunier: The reason for this provision was actually based on a high number of — typically young — individuals with a hobby of pointing lasers in the cockpit of aircraft.
Senator Simons: That sounds like a very bad plan.
Mr. Meunier: We agree with your assessment, senator. The reason for that provision was to have a strict liability. It made it easier for the police of jurisdiction to determine if someone was close to the airport with something they are not supposed to have but do. That, for us, was an effective deterrent with respect to individuals in the vicinity of the airport pointing lasers at aircraft.
You are right that other cities were not included in those amendments. The reason is that we didn’t have enough data showing the same level of problem in those communities. I believe our recent statistics do not indicate that that is the case at this time.
Senator Simons: Sometimes these things are almost viral in a real medical sense. It becomes a thing that people do and then it kind of burns out. I do not want to call it a hobby, because it is obviously maliciously stupid, but has the craze for doing this burnt itself out or is it still a problem?
Mr. Meunier: There have been fewer reports of that in the last little while; you are correct. There has been a high-profile campaign by a number of actors in the industry, including the Air Line Pilots Association, to show people what it means and the impact this laser would have in the cockpit. It temporarily blinds the pilot. This is telling in terms of what it means. Some pilots were injured because of that.
I do not want to claim victory, senator. I do not want to be complacent about it, but this is something that, for us, warranted action. We took action. It is less of a problem than it used to be. That said, when we need to take action on those things, we will because this has the potential to incapacitate pilots at a very critical phase of flight, and we think it is a safety issue.
The Chair: I hope you all recognize one of Canada’s leading journalists from Western Canada with a piercing and outstanding question, senator.
Senator Simons: Just like a laser, right in your eyes.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: During COVID, for instance, there were tons of complaints filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding passenger safety. I know that Transport Canada, as a department, has a responsibility under the Official Languages Act, even if it’s not exactly within the realm of the Aeronautics Act. There’s a link between the two, however.
Under the Official Languages Act, Transport Canada is responsible for Part IV, making sure that airport services are offered in both official languages. It’s a matter of passenger safety. On the other hand, Part V of the act, regarding language in the workplace, states that employees can use the official language of their choice. In emergency situations, when passengers cannot be served in their own language, it can cause problems and lead to official complaints.
Mr. Meunier and Ms. Hamilton, my question is for you both, because it concerns airports and their security staff. What can you tell us about this issue? Can you give us examples of incidents that occurred? You could also explain what is being done to comply with the Official Languages Act insofar as the goal of the amendments is to improve the safety of the population.
Mr. Meunier: Thank you for the question, senator.
Transport Canada’s responsibilities regarding aviation safety in terms of official languages are enshrined in the Commercial Air Service Standards, which require safety presentations in the passenger cabin to be made in both official languages and documents in the seat pockets to be bilingual or illustrated with pictograms so that they be understood in both official languages.
In terms of aviation safety, interactions between passengers and flight attendants are likely to be the only direct service received by passengers. That being said, beyond these obligations that every Canadian airline must comply with under the Commercial Air Service Standards, only Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. These obligations are unique to Air Canada and are found only in this act. Civil aviation regulations include only the cabin safety obligations that I mentioned.
Senator Cormier: The law also applies to airports if I’m not mistaken.
Mr. Meunier: I’ll let the CATSA address the security screening.
Transport Canada’s civil aviation regulations for airports only pertain to airport certification, more specifically with respect to airside equipment: runway lighting, location of airside signage, et cetera. If you’re enquiring about what happens inside the actual terminals, that falls within the purview of another group within Transport Canada unrelated to aviation safety.
Senator Cormier: I get that, but you understand that this is about safety?
Mr. Meunier: Yes, I understand perfectly.
[English]
Ms. Hamilton: Thank you for your question. I’m happy to respond on behalf of CATSA.
It is extremely important from a security perspective, from a communication-with-the-passenger perspective. CATSA is required to provide screening services in both official languages.
We oversee the delivery of that obligation by our screening contractors. We have provisions within our service contracts with them to ensure that obligation is fulfilled, for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the security processes are being carried out appropriately.
More recently, we took an additional step — from a passenger perspective — of deploying what we called the “facilitator program” across the country, which is designed to facilitate passengers in a number of ways, including provision of service in both official languages, as well as accessibility and other distinct requirements at the checkpoint.
We do survey passengers on whether they were served in the language of their choice and we are happy to report that we received a 96% survey result from passengers with respect to having received service in the language of their choice.
Senator Cormier: I must have been a part of the 4% then. Thank you.
The Chair: It looks like we have run our course at this particular time.
Senator Simons: I could ask another 10 or 12 questions.
The Chair: I know. But I had a line underneath the table pulling at your leg not to do that.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We certainly appreciate the way you answered the questions and the completeness of your answers and responses. We thank you very much.
If there is anything that you want to write back to us on, in terms of any of the questions that were asked, we would love to have anything written back from you, any answers, by December 17, 2025. Thank you again. You were very accommodating with us and we appreciate it.
(The committee continued in camera.)