[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 18, 1996
.0900 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
I have a little business of the committee to transact, if I could ask members to hold on for a few minutes. I'll speak to a couple of you during the proceedings once we've heard witnesses, but I don't want to delay the witnesses.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): I would like to raise one point. I pointed out last time to our maintenance, or to whoever it is here, that this plug is defective. Here we are a few days later and it hasn't been fixed. Can we just make a note to somebody so they actually fix it this time?
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Our first witnesses are Captain Don Johnny and Mr. Frank Flood from the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association. Welcome, gentlemen. I would ask you to try to hold your remarks to about 10 minutes so we give members an opportunity for questions. Thank you.
Captain Don Johnny (President, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association): Mr. Chairman and members, good morning.
I am Captain Don Johnny, the president of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association. Accompanying me this morning is First Officer Frank Flood, who is the deputy chairman of our technical and safety division. Unfortunately, Captain Forman was unable to attend as originally planned.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and speak with regard to Bill C-20. Although we are not users as defined in the legislation, our members utilize all the facilities of Canada's air navigation systems on a daily basis. No other group, company or association has a better appreciation of the end product or its impact on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods by air, nor of the potential for efficiencies available both to companies and to the air crews.
Along with CATCA, ATAC, CBAA and COPA, we have endorsed from the very beginning the move towards privatization of the air navigation system in the interest of efficiency and safety.
As employees, we recognize that if our companies are not efficient, our livelihoods are in jeopardy. But as pilots, we also recognize that if we are not operating with the safest equipment and procedures, our lives are in jeopardy. NAV CANADA can provide both an efficient and safe environment for us to work in. With only a few comments, CALPA supports Bill C-20.
As I indicated earlier, the word ``user'' is inadequately defined in this document. Surely the professional piloting community is the true user. Although we do not pay directly for these services, we do use them, and if there are inadequacies in the systems, we sometimes pay with our lives. I would hope the definition of user could be expanded to become more representative of its intent.
Another minor concern is the exclusion of apron areas from the manoeuvring area and therefore exempting those areas from positive control. Since our members have the responsibility for manoeuvring an aircraft under its own power on some aprons, we feel there is a need for qualified licensed personnel to control these areas.
In Montreal recently, we had a nose-to-nose confrontation between two aircraft because the apron controller gave inappropriate advice and was not responsible for the result. At some airports like Calgary, once you leave the taxiway you switch to an apron control, where you're offered traffic advisory and then told to proceed at your own discretion.
More and more airports are opting for unlicensed apron advisory. We feel if the aircraft has the potential to move under its own power, that area should be subject to control by trained and licensed personnel and therefore should be party of NAV CANADA's responsibility.
.0905
Within the act there are charging principles that do not adequately address the avoidance of charges. The statement is, and I quote:
- charges must not be structured in such a way that the user would be encouraged to engage in
practices that diminish safety for the purpose of avoiding a charge.
It is, of course, a different situation for the recreational and private user. These pilots are the future of aviation in Canada and require nurturing. We must encourage the use of the system and all of its facilities, not simply remove the impediments.
CALPA would therefore support a charging principle that exempts from NAV CANADA charges private and recreational users for certain classes and weights of aircraft. We recognize the revenue potential of this group and strongly feel there are other ways of compensating NAV CANADA for these services, such as the transfer of a portion of the fuel excise tax currently in effect.
CALPA's primary concern has always been safety. The by-laws and proposed air regulations appear to address this issue by establishing three separate committees that have, among other things, the responsibility for overseeing safety. In fact, the advisory committee of which CALPA is a member has a wide mandate and through its diversity has the ability to effectively monitor safety.
However, Transport Canada will continue to have the responsibility on behalf of the Government of Canada and the travelling public for monitoring and enforcing compliance with all of the regulations and rules of the air, including the provision of air navigation services by NAV CANADA.
To carry out this public trust, Transport Canada must be a properly functioning organization.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Captain Johnny. Could I just ask you to slow down just a little bit? The interpreter is lagging a bit behind.
Capt Johnny: Certainly. To carry out this public trust, Transport Canada must be a properly functioning organization. We have some concerns that it will not be a properly functioning organization following reorganization and decentralization.
I realize this may not directly relate to Bill C-20, so I shall digress no further than to state that the ability of Transport Canada to function effectively in its monitoring of NAV CANADA's services is of vital importance. Discussion of our concern is a subject for another forum. But I believe this committee should be made aware that the future shape of Transport Canada has been determined against the best advice of the various stakeholders who were consulted. As a result, Transport Canada will be far less effective in its regulatory and oversight role than it should be.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate the position CALPA has maintained from the very beginning. NAV CANADA is a necessary step in the evolution of an efficient, responsible and safe air navigation system. With only those few reservations I've mentioned, CALPA fully supports a privatized ANS and therefore Bill C-20.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Captain Johnny.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier.
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): Captain Johnny mentioned that the word Àuserä should be better defined. How exactly would he like the definition to be expanded?
[English]
Capt Johnny: At present, I believe the legislation indicates the user is an aircraft operator. By definition, an aircraft operator is the company and does not directly relate to the pilots who fly the aircraft and use the systems. Our organization would like to see pilots included as users.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): If the definition of the word "user" were expanded to include pilots, would a number of positions on the board of directors be reserved for pilot representatives?
.0910
[English]
Capt Johnny: It is not CALPA's position that we wish to have any representatives of pilots on the board of directors. We feel the board of directors has been appropriately chosen at the present time.
Our position on the advisory committee allows us the oversight responsibility and the oversight capability that we seek.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Instead of merely being included in the definition of Àuserä, you would like some oversight capability, as other pilots stated yesterday, to ensure that safety remains the primary consideration and takes precedence over profitability. You don't want to see safety standards sacrificed in the name of profitability. Is that indeed your position?
[English]
Capt Johnny: It's certainly with this in mind that safety is the primary consideration of the pilots. When I leave for work in the morning, my wife hopes I come home in the evening. And I certainly would like to make her feel I'm doing my part to ensure that every other pilot comes home at the end of the day.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: I'd like to start with one thing to get it out of the way. I asked this of your other air organization, the Air Canada people who came in.
Contained in the document provided by Transport Canada is a statement on AWOS, because NAV CANADA is going to be buying information from Environment Canada and Environment Canada is going to be using AWOS to do a lot of the observations.
It states in here that the major carriers, most members of the air navigation system national advisory committee and Transport Canada do not consider the use of AWOS unsafe. I would ask you from a pilot's point of view and from CALPA's point of view if you consider AWOS equipment as fully safe and dependable.
Capt Johnny: I think, Jim, I'd like to turn the response to that question over to First Officer Flood, if I may. But I can say that at the present time we do not support untested, unproven systems such as AWOS.
Perhaps Frank could expand on that.
Mr. Frank Flood (Deputy Chairman, Technical and Safety Division, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association): Thank you. Both as a technical representative and as a flying pilot, I feel I speak for most members - hopefully all - when I say that perhaps technology, as fabulous as it can be, is not perceived by the pilots as being the safest approach when it comes to reliability on a continuous basis.
A small example would be on that rare occasion when one would have to go to a legal alternate because of minimum fuel, unfamiliarity and other factors. One might arrive at what should have been a clear destination to find it obscured in fog. Perhaps there hasn't been an ongoing substantial monitoring of the reliability of this system. Or perhaps it's our perception. In either case, we do not support it.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I do have the report of Canadian Airlines chief meteorologist dealing with that.
With regard to apron control, I don't have any doubt that NAV CANADA would be fully prepared to provide it. But somebody is going to have to pay for it because it is a user-pay cost recovery system.
Do you believe the airlines would or should support the additional cost of providing specific apron control?
Capt Johnny: Whether or not the airlines are prepared to support the cost is not what I was alluding to. If the airlines check their records, they should find that recently there has been an increase in ground incidences, particularly on apron areas. If those costs are not sufficient to justify their involvement in apron control, the concern for safety and loss of life should be, as witnessed by an accident last year at Mirabel with a de-icing bay, which is essentially a no man's land that should have been controlled.
.0915
Mr. Gouk: You do have a number of manoeuvring areas now, such as water landing areas and Vancouver harbour, where it is air traffic control, but as soon as you get into the water mix the manoeuvring is at pilot's discretion. Generally, that has always been accepted. I understand your concern and it is certainly something to monitor.
Capt Johnny: I think annex 11 of the Chicago Convention is what deals with and allows apron control to be excluded from the manoeuvring areas. What we're suggesting is that NAV CANADA really should take a look at taking responsibility for this. If there is a cost involved, then maybe it should be planned into how they fund the organization.
Mr. Gouk: With regard to your comments about avoiding charges - this is a concern and certainly again something that should be looked at - how would you say that compares to the present practice of some airline pilots of avoiding delays in getting their approach by cancelling IFR when they're on a sequential approach in a one-in, one-out type of situation? And what would you say about cancelling departing VFR because of flow control delays, cancelling IFR tracking westbound in Vancouver so they can do a left-hand visual on 12, things like that? How does that compare?
Capt Johnny: I don't think what you're talking about is a fair comparison. What we're trying to avoid, I think, is the ability of an operator to put pressure on his air crews to step outside the normal practices for an economic reason and not utilize all of the facilities to accomplish something. If, at times, pilots have cancelled IFR to expedite procedures, it's not unreasonable as long as the procedure is safe.
Mr. Gouk: I have one last question. If air traffic control were on strike, would you depart in an aircraft in an IFR environment?
Capt Johnny: Would I? No.
Mr. Gouk: Do you know of any pilot who would?
Capt Johnny: I know of no pilot who would intentionally break the rules.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. We move to Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for your submission to this committee this morning. It was very thorough and very focused, and we appreciate that.
I did want to address two concerns you brought forward in your submission. One had to do with your concern on oversight responsibility to ensure the safety regulations were being adhered to and monitored. It is quite clear from the government's point of view that Transport Canada has, of course, established the safety regulations and standards that would apply to the new corporation. To ensure this high level of safety, I want to assure you, sir, and anyone else who is following these proceedings that the department would monitor the corporation's operations and ensure compliance. I want to make sure this is clear and put forward.
The other main aspect and focus of your submission has to do with the user. Initially, I too was concerned about whether or not the term ``user'' in it's definition included the pilot, the person actually sitting in the plane and making decisions there. Let's turn to, for example, clauses 14 and 15 in the bill. Where there is an instance or a proposal to do anything mentioned in clause 14 or where there is any kind of proposal likely to affect a significant group of users in any material way, there must be notice given and suggestions received not just from the users.
.0920
It's clearly pointed out in the legislation that users, which, for the purposes of the bill, really means the people you're going to charge for the service.... But in addition to that, clause 15, for example, says it must ``specify that persons interested in making representations in writing to the Corporation about any proposal'' to make any changes.... For example, while in paragraph (a) it addresses ``representative organizations of users whose members will'', etc., paragraph (b) says ``every user and other person'' who has a number of days to notify the corporation of the desire to receive notice or announcements on any kind of change, etc.
What is meant by ``other person'' vis-à-vis the legislation is consumer associations or airports themselves, the managers, etc., or boards, the LAAs at airports, and pilots.
Does that go to any length to satisfy your need to ensure that any changes that are made from the corporation's point of view...? They are going to receive the valuable input from not just the users but also, as the legislation states, ``other persons''. ``Other persons'' includes the associations, pilots, airport managers, etc.
Capt Johnny: We certainly accept the premise that the corporation is going to consult with the people who actually use the system. We just felt it would be a bit clearer if we could be included in the definition of ``user'' so there would be no confusion about who is allowed to consult on these types of issues.
It was certainly not an attempt to change the regulation in any way, shape, or form -
Mr. Keyes: No.
Capt Johnny: - but only to ensure that we would be given an opportunity to monitor the safety side of the corporation.
Mr. Keyes: It would be only my opinion, and others could agree or disagree, but you have more strength in this bill by actually being defined as separate and apart from a user - that being defined as someone whom the corporation is going to charge for services - and identified as ``other persons''. By definition, ``other persons'' are people like yourselves, the people who actually fly the planes.
To my way of thinking, that gives you an even stronger position, because it sets out right in the legislation that when we talk about the users we're talking about the airlines and the people who are going to be charged for the services, but we also very purposely specify other persons in the legislation, in order to encompass all those other groups.
You can imagine what would happen if we started to identify users. I'm not sure we have enough pages to put in the book to start to identify all of the different users. Why do it for pilots? Then we had better start defining what a user is vis-à-vis this and that consumer group and this and that association. You can imagine the list you could get.
So it is to strengthen your position, to strengthen the position, and to make it clear in the legislation that consideration has to be given not just to the users and the definition that goes with that, but also, from a very strong point of view, ``every user and other person'', which brings together all the different users of the system like the pilots, etc.
Capt Johnny: I can certainly understand and accept the rationale you're presenting, sir, and I have no problem with that idea.
We're the only group that ends up talking to the air traffic controller, and not to be defined as a user seems in some ways to be a dichotomy.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes and Captain Johnny. Mr. Hubbard is next.
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You referred in your submission to concerns that small private aircraft should be exempt from user fees. The country, probably since World War II, has encouraged private pilots and flying by smaller groups. Are you concerned that the user fees for that group could become...?
.0925
Capt Johnny: I'm concerned that the user fees for those groups could create a situation where some of those individuals may choose not to use all of the facilities available to them if there was a charge in place, in an attempt to avoid charges.
I'm concerned that it may at some point in time, if the charges become onerous at all, reduce the number of people we have in the private and recreational aircraft sector. Certainly the country has nurtured the private aircraft and recreational pilot group for a considerable period of time, and we'd like to ensure that they continue, because they are the backbone of the aviation industry, they are the pilots of the future in Canada. Those are my replacements in the flight deck.
Mr. Hubbard: So you're suggesting that this could become a matter of safety when private pilots opted to fly, as they say, by the seat of their pants rather than using the facilities that might be available?
Capt Johnny: Human nature being what it is, I believe there are individuals out there in the system who would not use all the facilities available to them and possibly put themselves or others at risk, yes.
Mr. Hubbard: Thank you.
The Chairman: One very short, final question from Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: When you were talking of the commercial structure of charging whether they use the service or not to create an environment where they wouldn't avoid the service, what about short-haul prop and turbo-prop types of operations that could quite safely take advantage of VFR weather and fly VFR and avoid that charge when there was no use? Would they, under that recommendation, then be subject to that charge, by your contemplation of this?
Capt Johnny: Under what I've said, yes, I believe they should be subject to that charge so that the operator isn't allowed to put undue pressure on his flight crews to avoid charges in marginal situations.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Captain Johnny and Mr. Flood.
Capt Johnny: Thank you.
Mr. Flood: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. David Eckmire from the Saskatchewan Aviation Council is next.
Yes, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, it's been my past experience that if the witness has a copy of his thing and we can get it to the translator, then it would be a lot easier for the translator to follow along more quickly with us.
The Chairman: We're doing that as you speak, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Eckmire, I would ask you to limit your remarks to about 10 minutes to give all members of the committee a chance to ask questions, thank you.
Mr. David Eckmire (President, Saskatchewan Aviation Council): If I might have the indulgence of the committee, my presentation is about 15 minutes. If that would be acceptable, I'll try to abbreviate it as much as I can.
The Chairman: As much as you can, please.
Mr. Eckmire: We certainly appreciate the opportunity to attend the committee hearing and state the concerns of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council. The council is the voice of aviation in Saskatchewan. We represent over 450 individuals and firms, representative of all sectors of the aviation community, from recreational and private pilots and aircraft donors, to flying schools, maintenance firms, air taxi operators, regional and major air carriers, as well as provincial government and federal government departments and industry suppliers.
The council is proud of the long tradition of flying in air commerce in the province. You might be interested to know that the first two licensed airports in Canada were Regina and Saskatoon, and the first three licensed commercial pilots in Canada were Roland Groome of Regina, and Stan McClelland and Harry Lobb of Saskatoon, in April 1920.
Most people when thinking about Saskatchewan think of the waving wheat fields, but actually two-thirds of our province is northern wilderness area. That's where an important segment of Saskatchewan's population and economic base makes its home. Aboriginal people, tourism, the forestry and mining industries depend on aviation in this region for transportation and development of the province's resources.
.0930
One of our concerns is that the ANS services, so vital to the infrastructure of our remote northern communities, be maintained without any degradation of service and without any increased user fees, which would hinder economic development of Saskatchewan's north. Thousands of Saskatchewan workers depend upon the ANS system and a network of small regional air carriers and air taxi operators to move them back and forth from their jobs at the province's northern mine sites. This is a different situation than exists in most other areas of Canada. For these people aviation and flying is not an option, it is part of their work environment. To impose user fees on their transportation would be an unfair and discriminatory policy.
The tourism industry brings thousands of visitors from the U.S.A. and other countries to visit our northern recreational areas. Many come in their own aircraft. Others make extensive use of the regional airlines, air taxi operators and aircraft owned and operated by various lodges and outfitters. Any user charge levied by NAV CANADA would impact negatively on this traffic, which is essential to the economic well-being of northern Saskatchewan. In particular, our American visitors flying into the fishing and hunting camps will not appreciate having ANS charges levied against them. It raises the question of how NAV CANADA proposes to collect these fees from small privately owned aircraft. It certainly seems that the cost of trying to collect these fees outweighs the value of the fees themselves.
A stated objective of the federal government, as well as NAV CANADA, is that there be no degradation of safety by the creation of this commercial operation. In a Transport Canada news release dated April 1, 1996, we quote: ``Safety will continue to be given the highest priority by both Transport Canada and NAV CANADA''. In addition, in the summary of Bill C-20, one of the fundamental objectives is listed as: ``provisions to ensure the continuing safety of air navigation services in Canada.'' And on page 17, clause 35, ``Charging Principles'', it states in paragraph 35(1)(b) that no user charge should diminish safety.
The Saskatchewan Aviation Council would like to address the issue of safety as it relates to NAV CANADA, its user charges and levels of service.
At the present time, there are 56,526 licensed pilots in Canada. This includes all commercial and air transport licensed pilots. Of this number, only 11,120 possess an instrument rating, approximately 20%. Of the total of 28,028 private pilots, only 518 possess the instrument rating, approximately 1.8%. This compares with the U.S.A., where there are a total of 639,184 licensed pilots, of whom 298,301 are instrument rated, about 46%. It clearly shows that Canadian pilots lag far behind our U.S. counterparts in developing the skills necessary to use the ANS system to its full potential.
So the council believes that if in fact the government and NAV CANADA are serious about promoting and encouraging flight safety, they will not take any action that would deter the development and maintenance of the skills necessary to operate safety in the ANS environment.
It should be remembered by the committee that Canada's ANS system was built and paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. In a sense, it is a lot like our national highway system, in this case the airways being the highways of the sky. Because the government has decided to sell the taxpayers' property to a commercial corporation, the least it can do is enshrine the rights of the individual aircraft owner and pilot to use this system free of any user charges.
We do understand and appreciate the needs and concerns of the airlines with respect to improvements needed in the system on a national basis. At the same time, we have to point out that in our region, central Canada, the system operates satisfactorily without any of the constraints experienced elsewhere. It is the airlines and major commercial users of the system that require changes to it, so they should be expected to bear any incremental costs associated with these changes.
.0935
The act, as it is written, makes no provision to exempt recreational and privately owned aircraft from the user fees it contemplates. We believe that recreational and privately owned aircraft under 4,000 kilograms should be exempt from any and all user fees.
We further believe that Transport Canada and NAV CANADA should be mandated by the government to encourage more Canadian pilots to become instrument qualified, and any applicable ANS fees be waived for any training flight, or for flights to maintain instrument currency or competency.
Talking about the value of service, in subclauses 35(2) and 35(3), it's well-known in the industry that airlines have access to computerized flight planning programs and subscribe to, or in some cases have their own, meteorology departments. So the value of the weather and flight planning facilities provided by NAV CANADA may be less to them than they are to the general aviation sector.
We've seen a continual deterioration of the flight service station and weather advisory services provided by Transport Canada over the past several years. One of the hon. members questioned the matter of AWOS, and this is a real thorn in our side. So we were pleased to see that NAV CANADA's articles of incorporation provided for an advisory committee elected by the associate members of the corporation. One of our chief concerns during the formative stage of NAV CANADA was that there should be greater representation from general aviation and regional aviation organizations on the board of directors.
The provision of the advisory committee may allow the desired input from the industry to the board of directors of NAV CANADA, but only if that advisory committee is enshrined in the act and is fully representative of regional aviation organizations, private and recreational pilot groups, small commercial operators, airports, the employees of NAV CANADA, professional pilot associations, and the international customers of NAV CANADA. So we would like to see the requirement for this advisory council and its balanced representation embodied in the act.
Finally, the government and NAV CANADA have continually pointed to the example of other similar private or commercialized ANS systems in countries like New Zealand, Austria, Portugal, Germany and Great Britain. It has been suggested that the transition from a government-run system has been beneficial to aviation in these countries. We'd like to point out that none of those countries has a significant general aviation fleet.
The general aviation fleet in Canada is the second largest in the world, second only to the United States in size. Our country - especially our northern lands - was opened up by general aviation and depends upon it today. We need to foster its growth, enhance its excellent safety record and shield it from fees and assessments that would hinder its development.
A recent statement in a brochure published by Transport Canada entitled Commercialization of the Air Navigation System, update April 1, 1996, highlights the example of the United States, which it claims is considering an entity called the U.S. Air Traffic Services Corp.
This statement is misleading because the 340,196-member American owners and pilots association is unalterably opposed to the creation of a commercialized ANS system in the United States and has successfully lobbied Congress against it.
Therefore, we in Saskatchewan await the introduction of NAV CANADA with some apprehension - caution, certainly. We would respectfully urge you to consider the following recommendations with respect to Bill C-20.
The first recommendation is that the bill include reference to the NAV CANADA advisory committee and that this committee must include representation from the regional aviation organizations, recreational and private pilot organizations, small commercial operators, airports, professional pilot associations, employees of NAV CANADA, and the international customers of NAV CANADA.
.0940
I might make note of the fact that the first advisory council elected at NAV CANADA's annual general meeting held here last week happens to meet these criteria. It should serve as a model for future appointments.
Our second recommendation is that user charges for regional carriers and air taxi operators serving remote communities or remote work sites should be waived or limited to a modest annual flat fee.
Third, user charges for recreational, private and business aircraft under 4,000 kilograms should be waived, and operators of these aircraft encouraged to become IFR qualified and maintain currency and competency without the penalty of paying user fees to access the ANS system.
Finally, there should be no user charges levied for any air ambulance or search and rescue flight.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our views on this most important matter. We look forward to the opportunity to work with NAV CANADA and Transport Canada during the implementation phase of this new venture.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Eckmire.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Could you give us an example of the impact that the application of the legislation would have on a typical business in Saskatchewan, whether it be a local carrier or one that caters to hunters and fishermen, if your recommendations, in particular the one pertaining to modest costs, were not retained? Without necessarily naming a company, could you give us a concrete example of how this would affect a typical business?
[English]
Mr. Eckmire: Thank you, Mr. Crête. We have a number of small carriers in Saskatchewan that cater to the tourism business. They fly visitors to the hunting and fishing camps and provide transportation to the first nations peoples in their settlements in northern Saskatchewan. They also provide transportation for many of those individuals in the first nations settlements, as well as other northern residents, to the major uranium and gold mine installations in northern Saskatchewan.
These operations would typically have between one and five aircraft - sometimes amphibious airplanes on floats. They operate on a very tight margin. Any additional fees they would have to pay would make it very difficult for them, especially with respect to the tourism industry and the contracts they have to bid for to provide transportation to the mine sites.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You mentioned a symbolic or modest fee. What would you consider as a reasonable amount, taking into account the anticipated cost if the legislation were applied in a uniform manner, and the costs set out in the current legislation?
[English]
Mr. Eckmire: I hesitate to recommend a specific amount, Mr. Crête. I think the setting of fees is something the advisory committee should have a large say in, because we represent the industry. The sad fact of the matter is that while the members of the board of directors of NAV CANADA are all highly qualified individuals in the fields of law and business, they are not really representative of expertise in the aviation industry.
The advisory committee, on the other hand, does possess that ability. I would recommend that the advisory committee develop some guidelines, because I'm sure our situation in northern Saskatchewan is similar to that of many operators in northern Quebec or other parts of Canada where similar activity is carried out.
.0945
Mr. Crête: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I make the offer again to the members opposite or to anyone who would like to hear in sixty seconds or less, very succinctly, why I don't think AWOS is safe. I would be very happy to give it to them very clearly and very quickly.
I would just like to clarify from the comments you made that you do not consider AWOS in its present operation is a fully reliable and safe system.
Mr. Eckmire: It is absolutely not a fully reliable and safe system.
Mr. Gouk: About your third recommendation, that private and business aircraft under 4,000 kilos, which goes up to a decent-size twin, be able to operate in the IFR structure without fee, do you recognize at the same time that when a light twin flies IFR it puts an immensely higher workload requirement on air traffic control than an airliner travelling at 700 or 800 kilometres an hour operating on an INS or a global track or that type of thing; the workload requirement, notwithstanding all the arguments you made - and there's merit to them - for that type of aircraft is infinitely higher than it is for an airliner?
Mr. Eckmire: I don't accept that premise, Mr. Gouk. I don't think the the workload is any higher for the light aircraft. In many cases, especially in our region, those aircraft are able to travel on direct routes off airways. In most cases those aircraft are better equipped in their navigational capabilities than the airliners you talk about. Very few Air Canada or Canadian Airlines planes are equipped with the sophisticated navigation equipment you're talking about. Only the newer airplanes have that.
We don't think business aircraft and light twins should be treated any differently.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
You mentioned flight service station deterioration, and I don't deny that at all. There have been a lot of shutdowns on that, weather stations closed and so on. You point out that part of the reason is that there is less need for this on the part of the airlines. They have other alternatives they provide themselves.
But does it not then suggest that there should be some balance? If we're asking them to pay for a system that by your own words they don't need so much, and at the same time asking them to pay for the supply of service to the types of people you have laid out, small operators and so on, basically the airlines would have to pick up the slack if it's an entirely user-pay system. If they have to recover the money from somewhere, then those charges would go to the major companies. At the same time you're saying you want better services for the small operator, services that are being lost now because they're being shut down because the larger operators, who were paying for most of this, do not need it.
Mr. Eckmire: The point I was making in my presentation was that there is a difference of opinion about the value of the service being provided. In this case the value of the flight planning and weather advisory services, particularly in the area we're concerned with here, northern Saskatchewan, is of vital importance, because that's often the only place where we can get that kind of information. The airlines are not using that information in that area. They are largely overflying our area, and in any case, because of their altitudes, they can access weather information out of the larger centres, the flight information centres in Winnipeg and Edmonton. So it's important to us that provisions be reinforced in the bill that require NAV CANADA to maintain levels of service that contribute to a safe ANS environment.
.0950
Mr. Gouk: In recommendation 4, are you looking for a waiving of fees for air ambulance and search and rescue? On search and rescue, half of your concern there is primarily a military operation, and this legislation would be waiving all fees against military operations. So you're at least halfway there with number 4.
Mr. Eckmire: We're halfway there with number 4, but the committee should also be aware that in western Canada a great deal of the search and rescue activity by the military is aided by the Canadian Air Search and Rescue Association, which is an association of essentially private pilots, CASARA, and it's important that these members be allowed to continue the very good work they do and not have to pay a penalty or premium for doing it.
Mr. Gouk: I agree, but would you not agree that in almost every case they're operating within the VFR structure, which would not impose fees on them?
Mr. Eckmire: In some cases that's true, but in other cases they may have to transit certain areas in order to get to a search site - in northern Saskatchewan, for example - and may in fact have to access the IFR system, or at least use the facilities of the ANS system in order to do that.
Mr. Keyes: President Eckmire, thanks very much for your presentation to us today.
On page 9, on your fourth recommendation, of course I have some sympathy for there being no user charges for air ambulance or search and rescue; but on number 3, that user charges should be waived for private and/or business aircraft under 4,000 kilograms, they are obviously using a service. Maybe there should not be a charge on a per-flight basis, but maybe there should be a flat fee of some kind. They are getting a service, and I don't know where you get something for nothing any more. This is certainly what's being professed here.
Could you go as far as to foresee maybe a flat fee with the licence, in order to get something back from the users of the smaller aircraft?
Mr. Eckmire: What we're concerned about here is the same point as was made earlier by Captain Johnny. It is that if you attempt to put in any fee, it is going to degrade further the ability of the private aircraft operators to operate in a cost-efficient manner in the system. In that case they will opt out of it, and then you will have an unsafe situation.
We have people running around now with GPS units in their airplanes. As Captain Johnny said, human nature being what it is, these people can plan flights and carry them out, in some cases putting them into protected airspace, to the danger of the rest of us who are flying in the system.
Why don't we turn this thing around? Why don't we use this new corporation as an opportunity to enhance and to upgrade our flying skills and, instead of charging people more either to acquire or to maintain an instrument rating, make it possible for them to do it and improve their flying skills and contribute to the safety of the whole aviation environment?
Mr. Keyes: That's why if we were to put, for example, a flat fee on the licence, I suppose it would be there. They're going to pay the fee with the licence. If they don't pay the fee, then they won't get a licence, and of course you know what happens if you fly without a licence.
Mr. Eckmire: Yes.
The question, though, is, do you want to foster and encourage the growth of general aviation in Canada, or do you want to put another nail into the coffin?
Mr. Keyes: I want to encourage it, but I don't want to give it to them for free. There has to be some responsibility there for the use of the system.
.0955
Mr. Eckmire: They're not getting it for free right now. We're paying significant federal taxes for fuel and landing fees and everything else.
Mr. Keyes: We're all paying for everything else, sure. We can take each one in turn and evaluate how much they pay and why they pay.
Mr. Eckmire: Transport Canada licence fees have gone up by an enormous amount in the past year. So it's not that we're getting it for free.
Mr. Gouk: Where you make reference to tourism flying to the northern areas, to the lakes and so on, would a significant number of those not be either on floats or aircraft such as 180s and so on, primarily flying always in the VFR structure?
Mr. Eckmire: No, again that's not the case, Mr. Gouk. The majority of our American visitors fly in, some of them with very sophisticated aircraft on wheels -
Mr. Gouk: I recognize some of them are sophisticated - but the floats and the 180s and so on, which make up the bulk of the traffic.
Mr. Eckmire: The vast majority of them fly in on wheels to airports such as La Ronge or Stony Rapids or Wolleston or Fond-du-Lac and then transfer to the float-equipped planes of our air taxi operators to go into the remote camps. But the majority of these pilots who are coming in are IFR qualified, flying very sophisticated aircraft, and are users of the system.
Mr. Gouk: It sounds as if they could afford a bit of a fee, then.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Eckmire. You did very well in the timing.
Now, our next witness is Mr. Peter Smith, president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada.
Before we begin, would those in the room who are members of the staff of the Department of Transport indicate that to me, please. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, welcome. Please keep your remarks to about ten minutes, so we have time for some pointed and insightful questions.
Mr. Peter Smith (President, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I hope the members have had an opportunity to glance at the text prepared as an official statement of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. I will not read that statement out but simply highlight some of the salient points.
May I first thank you for the invitation. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada represents about 150 members in the aerospace manufacturing and supplier side of the aerospace industry. We have sales in excess of $11 billion, employ about 54,000 people, and export about 70% to 75% of our products. So we do have a significant interest in the way in which the government is prepared to divest responsibility for the operation of the air navigation system.
I would also like to comment that we were particularly pleased by the enthusiasm of the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Doug Young, in this regard. We wish to congratulate him for it, and certainly the current Minister of Transport for the way in which the implementation seems to be proceeding.
Mr. Chairman and members, I thought I would simply indicate to you that what was particularly amazing about this process was that so many diverse views of people had to be taken into consideration. Once again the aerospace industry association, in the form of myself, was asked to participate in the advisory committee that led up to the process of incorporation of NAV CANADA. I say ``amazing'' for the simple reason that so many unions were involved, there were so many interests, as in my particular case, representing the interests of the suppliers, and so many users, of course, of both commercial and general aviation.
.1000
It was a very complex matter, and I simply want to draw the attention to the members. When the advisory committee was set up, it was set up to include everyone who had a particular stake in the process, from the Air Transport Association of Canada to CATA, CALPA, ourselves, about eight or nine unions, and a number of other interests such as the airport councils, etc.
I raise this because the process was a remarkable experience in consensus building. It took a long time to proceed through a very delicate process, safety and cost being dominant factors. The current operations are very much of a concern in the sense that the government was looking at ways and means in which it could reduce its operating budget, reduce the deficit, but at the same time come up with a solution that hopefully would meet the expectations of all concerned.
Having said that, I want to point out that it took a while to come to a conclusion as to what the preferred option would be. I must say, and I'm sure other witnesses have or will be explaining to you, that the discussions that took place came to the recommendation that the most appropriate option was a not-for-profit option. We had several issues to raise in that regard and we finally came to the conclusion that indeed it was the most appropriate.
The next most important issue was how all the diverse interests of the people who would be affected could be represented on the board. In this regard I think it was important to ensure that there was a balance. Indeed, when you take a look at the discussions that took place - and I'm sure Ministry of Transport officials will provide you with the minutes of the advisory committee - there was ample opportunity for all concerned, including AIAC, to make representations in this regard.
The final result was the determination of the not-for-profit solution. Everyone had an opportunity to raise their respective concerns, and an interim board of directors was appointed, again through a fairly democratic process in the sense that the users had an opportunity to nominate one, the unions had an opportunity to nominate one, and I was asked if I could collect the views of the independents, which were basically the suppliers, the pilots, and the airport authorities.
I was nominated to represent that particular constituency, Mr. Crichton was representing the users, and Mr. Nelligan was asked by the unions to represent their interests, so we in fact became the three incorporating directors of NAV CANADA.
I raise this because many hours of discussion occurred, particularly around the November time period, to ensure that there was appropriate representation on the board of directors. In this regard the advisory committee and indeed the incorporating board of directors were satisfied that ATAC, which is the Air Transport Association of Canada, was in fact the most representative of the users for the simple reason that we dealt considerably with the constitution of ATAC, which is similar to ours, by the way. In the aerospace industry there are dominant players; on the supply side there are about nine and on the air carrier side there are two.
Constitutionally I think you have to take a look at the board of directors of these particular organizations to ensure that there is appropriate representation nationally. In fact, 75% of ATAC's members are the small and medium-sized carriers or flight schools across the country.
We indeed listened to all the concerns from those who had expressed views that were not in a consensus mode at the time. In fact, once the announcement was made in the budget and the incorporation process started, Department of Transport officials in the form of the deputy minister came to the last advisory committee and indicated that there was now a mandate to proceed with incorporation. It was at that time that Mr. Crichton, I myself, and Mr. Nelligan proceeded with the process of dealing with the by-laws and the incorporation process of letters patent.
As I recall, we had one last and final meeting in respect to allowing the group that was constituted as the advisory committee to comment on the by-laws before they would be finalized, and there were two issues there that still seemed to be a matter of concern. One was the bilingualism issue and the way in which NAV CANADA would operate, and there was still a nagging concern with respect to the representation on the board.
.1005
All of the issues were heard, and in fact the deputy minister and the officials associated with incorporating felt quite comfortably that the two major issues that were, if you will, of concern to some of the members of the advisory committee were in fact handled.
In fact, I looked at Bill C-20, or Bill C-30 the other day, and was pleased to see that with the incorporation into the legislation NAV CANADA would be operating as if it were a government department and bilingualism would prevail as if it were that of the Department of Transport.
On the issue of representation on the board, it was certainly considered, as a consensus of the advisory committee before the final incorporation process and by-laws were approved, that indeed those that were appropriately represented nationally were in fact broken down into the appropriate numbers within the board's constitution.
I simply want to state that we in the Aerospace Industries Association have reviewed the legislation. We are very supportive of the process, and indeed are quite satisfied that any of the concerns that may have been ones to the supplier element of this particular corporation, or operation now, in the federal government have been satisfied.
We simply want to state categorically that we are very much in support of the procedure to pass the bill as is, and we have no recommendations for amendments.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Smith.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Everyone thinks that their own baby is the most beautiful of all. When a child is born, parents rarely believe that he or she isn't the most beautiful baby of all.
When you say that you fail to see the need for amendments, do you share the viewpoint expressed yesterday by the pilots, namely that when NAV CANADA proceeds to purchase material or equipment for airports, safety issues should take precedence over economic concerns? Doesn't the current legislation stipulate that safety regulations have priority over purely economic considerations? Isn't this one aspect of the legislation that should be improved?
Secondly, the Deputy Minister confirmed to us that when a regional airport fails to turn a profit, NAV CANADA will not have to take into consideration the impact of its decisions on the regional economy. Do you not feel that these provisions could be amended or improved?
[English]
Mr. Smith: First, I can't take responsibility for the birth of this child. I was only a part of it, so I can't comment on its beauty, or otherwise.
On the other issue, with respect to equipment and supply and safety, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that the advisory committee's preoccupation related exclusively to the issues of bilingualism and composition of the board. In fact, a tremendous amount of time was spent on safety issues, as well as overflight charges and other means of revenue generation, in order to make this a break-even or profitable situation.
I personally was interested in the way in which this particular new corporation, privatized as it would be, would have an impact on my suppliers, and indeed that's what my primary role was in the formulation of this corporation.
I want categorically to state two things.
The first is from a safety perspective. I believe you have an appreciation that this corporation will be guided by advisory committees who will be exclusively preoccupied with safety.
Two, you also have to appreciate that one of the contributors to the losses or deficit in the operation of air traffic control today relates to the policies and procedures that have to be complied with, particularly in the acquisition of material for airports. There's a fairly rigorous role that government departments have to go through in order to purchase goods or services in the federal government.
.1010
Having being extricated from the government process, I am convinced that there are still checks and balances in respect to the way in which this corporation will operate and purchase its equipment for the airports to provide this particular service.
First, I understand that Industry Canada will be requiring the corporation to report on the acquisition process.
Second, it would be foolhardy, in my opinion, to think that a corporation that is a Canadian-constituted corporation would do anything other than be a good corporate citizen and take a look at the approach that would be given with respect to using Canadian equipment.
I would not sit here representing suppliers of Canada and ask for a privileged position, a Canada-only process, when we're in a process of free trade agreements. It's simply a matter of ensuring that our competitors, by the way that I mentioned at the outset, do export in excess of 75% of its equipment. Therefore, we must be competitive, we must have quality products, and we are convinced that the incorporation of this particular operation will not have a negative effect on our ability to sell equipment to this corporation.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Smith, I gather that as the president of the Aerospace Industries Association.... Your member organizations are primarily involved in the sale or servicing of equipment.
Mr. Smith: That's correct.
Mr. Gouk: As such, obviously, you would like to make sure that this is a smooth-running organization, but you are not primarily concerned directly on behalf of your organizations with the operational aspects as opposed to ensuring that it is in fact a good corporation that operates effectively.
Mr. Smith: Not directly, no, in that the members of our association, for instance, include Canadair and Bombardier, which build the aircraft. Obviously, they'll be landing and taking off. It includes Hughes Canada, which would be providing the services with respect to the software and hardware on the aircraft control system, and a number of others that basically provide services and goods -
Mr. Gouk: None of your members are directly involved with the operational aspect of what this will involve?
Mr. Smith: Two are now indirectly in it. IMP out of Halifax is now the current owner of Air Atlantic. Kelowna Flightcraft is a member of mine, and there's still some controversy with respect to the arrangement vis-à-vis Greyhound.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. In regard to this bill, I'm mainly focusing on the operational aspects.
Mr. Smith: Understood.
Mr. Gouk: I appreciate your words.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Thank you, Mr. Smith. I certainly concur with your assessment that this is the right way to go in Canada.
The previous witness, on behalf of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council mentioned on page 8 - and if I may quote - in reference to a Transport Canada brochure that referred to the U.S., a claim that they were moving towards a commercialized system but that the American owners and pilots association were ``unalterably opposed.''
Are there some lessons for us in the American system, or are there some things we are doing that in fact may encourage the Americans to move in this progressive direction?
Mr. Smith: Indeed, it was a preoccupation of the advisory committee to take a look at precedents that were going on prior to embarking on this particular process. The New Zealand situation was in fact used as a model, and there were others worldwide.
I think my text indicates that the process the Canadian government used was one that was able to learn from the processes that were taking place either successfully or not so successfully worldwide. In regard to the American situation, it is a very different country from Canada, as is Canada from New Zealand, and I think we have to learn from those particular aspects. But what impresses me most about the process that has gone on to date is that I firmly believe - and we should take a great deal of pride in this as a nation - that we will be used as a model, because this truly will be a success when you take a look at the way in which the board and representation and a constitution have been created.
.1015
A lot of controversy occurs with respect to the potential of the unknown in moving from a tax to a user fee, but I think you will agree with me that the appeal process is there. There are checks and balances in the system.
I think that the Americans, in all modesty, will be looking at our system to use as a model because they have had various false starts in this regard. I believe that everything in our operating principles would be attractive to them.
I'm not suggesting that it should be used as a replica because they will be taking a look at how geographically, how operationally, it may have to be suited to their needs as opposed as ours, but it's probably the most complementary in the sense of the North American scene.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
The Chairman: The next witness is Mr. Brian Jenner from the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. Welcome, Mr. Jenner.
I am informed that you do not have a written brief but that one will be available next week. I would ask you as I have other witnesses to keep your remarks to about 10 minutes to allow time for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Brian Jenner (President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens): I would like to begin by explaining briefly the role played by the AQTA within Canada's air transport system.
The Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens or AQTA represents 80 of the 150 air carriers in Quebec.
To be able to boast that 55% of all air carriers are members of the AQTA is a remarkable feat since carriers are under no obligation to join an association. This percentage has nothing at all to do with the nature of air carriers as such; in fact, only 10% or so of all Canadian carriers are members of the Air Transport Association of Canada.
Language and the specific characteristics of the regional air transport system are not the sole reasons for these membership statistics. Like pilots elsewhere in Canada, our members fly 400- seat aircraft as well as two-seaters. We are as familiar with Cessna 310s as we are with Airbus 310s.
Even though the AQTA conducts all of its activities in French, its members are highly representative of the Canadian industry as a whole. The AQTA's success rests on its fulfilling its mission which is to promote an economic and regulatory environment respectful of the rights of carriers to offer their services, the right of workers to earn a living while providing these services and the right of consumers to receive these services. Air transportation, a field which comes under federal jurisdiction, knows no boundaries; this is also true of AQTA members.
Our members are representative of the air transport industry across Canada. We carry out our mandate from a resolutely national perspective. As such, we are deeply concerned by the commercialization of air navigation services.
We all agree on the need to commercialize air navigation services. The government can no longer continue to subsidize this unprofitable service. Travellers, in particular those in regional markets, can no longer absorb price increases.
.1020
Without question, we must find a way to reduce the costs of the air navigation system, a system which the public sector is not in a position to turn around. Commercialization is, therefore, a necessary alternative, provided we succeed in lowering costs while safeguarding the interests of the regions and of SMEs and, in Quebec's case, French used in the air.
Since we were members of the advisory committee on the privatization of air services to which Mr. Smith referred, we can say with some conviction that the corporation responsible for managing air navigation services should from the very beginning have been controlled by the industry. We acknowledge that the air transport industry has both the will and the capability to manage its essential infrastructures as effectively and efficiently as possible.
When we testified before this committee in February 1995, we pointed out the danger that in the future, the different components of the industry might not be fairly represented on the board of directors of the corporation responsible for air navigation services. To protect regional rights, the rights of SMEs and in particular, the right to speak French in the air, we recommended that regional and national representatives, large and small aircraft operators, large companies and SMEs and commercial and private air carriers all be represented equally on the board of the corporation now known as NAV CANADA. We also underscored the fact that even if the air navigation system was commercialized, it would remain a public service. Justice and fairness dictate that the corporation's board of directors should be accountable to everyone. Representation on the ANS board should be democratic, meaning one person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote. We cautioned the committee that concentrating representation in the hands of international carriers posed an unacceptable risk for other service users.
Unlike Mr. Smith, we feel that our worst nightmares about the future of the ANS have come true. Although its members have tremendous confidence in their association which represents all components of air transport industry and although these members have voiced their concerns about the use of French in the air, the AQTA is not involved in any way in the management of NAV CANADA.
Privatization will soon become a reality and AQTA members wonder what the impact of this will be on prices. The only answer we can give them is that the association CEO has not been apprised of the situation. Members ask us how privatization will affect service levels. All we can tell them is that the CEO of the association which represents more air carriers than any other Canadian association is completely in the dark. The only people appointed to NAV CANADA's board to represent commercial users are former senior officials with major air carriers.
We deplore the fact that to date, despite our demands, NAV CANADA has refused to give French the same official status as English in the management of the corporation and to stipulate in its corporate mission statement that NAV CANADA has a duty to actively promote the use of French in the air. The current President and CEO of NAV CANADA are both unilingual anglophones. At present, no one on NAV CANADA's board is accountable for the status of the French language in the air. So far, no one director on NAV CANADA's board represents commercial users in Quebec. We felt it was our duty to warn our members that as the public hearings on Bill C-20 approached, NAV CANADA officials began to soften their position on the use of French, even though we still do not have any guarantees today and no regard has been shown for our wishes. The concept of distinct society seems to be beyond the comprehension of NAV CANADA directors.
.1025
It remains to be seen whether the concept of distinct society will be reflected in the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, because if there is a distinction, it is clearly in the area of language and if Quebeckers have made any demands at all with respect to language in the past 20 years, it has clearly been with respect to the use of French in the air.
Only when the stakes are clear and all components of the air transport industry are respected will we be able to build together a privatized air navigation service, one that is seen as a sound investment and a good place to work and one which will serve consumers in total safety.
A year ago, we expressed confidence in the future of the ANS. Today, we no longer have any confidence whatsoever in the privatization bill as drafted. The bill treats the French language, the regions of this country and all SMEs in the air transport sector with contempt. Are you going to confirm this attitude by adopting the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act as it now stands or are you going to put the process back on track by amending Bill C-20?
We recommend that the legislation state clearly that NAV CANADA is accountable to a constituent assembly composed of Canadian aviation associations and that the decisions of this constituent assembly require the approval of 66% of its members, provided that the current NAV CANADA advisory committee serve as the constituent assembly for the next two years.
We recommend that NAV CANADA's incorporating instruments have force of law and that, on the recommendation of the corporation's constituent assembly, the minister be made responsible for publishing such instruments; that NAV CANADA be legally required to have its fee-setting policies approved by this committee; that NAV CANADA's constituent assembly be authorized by law to define the levels of service it provides; and finally, that NAV CANADA's constituent assembly be authorized by law to convene public hearings to examine fee-setting policies and levels of service.
These recommendations will not directly resolve the problems that we have identified in the privatization bill. Instead, what they do is offer the industry the tools its needs to truly take over the administration of the system as it is today and as it will be in the years to come. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jenner.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Will we be getting a copy of your recommendations?
Mr. Jenner: The Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens does not intend to submit a written series of recommendations. However, we are a member of the Council of Air Transport Associations which is scheduled to appear before the committee next week and which will present a brief that reflects our association's expectations from a technical standpoint. The language issue is a unique concern of ours and my testimony reflects our position on the subject.
Mr. Mercier: If the very important issues that you raise concerning language are not put down in writing and submitted to us, how do you expect us to present amendments in line with your demands to the House?
Mr. Jenner: If the government of Canada adopts the recommendations that we are proposing here today as well as those which the Council of Air Transport Associations will be presenting tomorrow, we are confident that the industry will be in a position to resolve NAV CANADA's problems, including the language problems.
.1030
We are not asking you to rectify the situation at NAV CANADA with respect to the use of French in aircraft. We are asking you to give us the tools to rectify the situation ourselves, much as the advisory committee on the privatization of Canada, on which the industry was very broadly represented, approved the granting of a corporate status to NAV CANADA and the privatization bill as it now stands.
The constituent assembly wants this type of responsible structure to be maintained and the committee should be in a position to rectify the problems that have been identified since the initial consultation process as well as those that will surface in the years ahead.
The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Guimond (Beauport - Montmorency - Orléans): Let me just say, first of all, how very pleased I am to see my former colleagues from the Transport Committee. I appreciated the two and half years we spent together.
May I begin by congratulating you because you are the living, breathing example of an anglophone from Ontario who has learned French, who lives in Quebec City, who works in French and who today is promoting the French language.
For your information, you should know that Mr. Jenner is the recipient of the 1995 Bilcom prize for bilingualism in communications awarded by the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. This is indeed an honour for him.
You raised three rather important points in your presentation. In particular, you noted that the representation on the NAV CANADA board should be more democratic.
I will put all of my questions to you first and then you can answer later.
Do you believe that there is still work to be done, as my colleague, Mr. Mercier, indicated? In other words, are amendments needed to ensure that the representation on the NAV CANADA board is more democratic?
Secondly, you stated that you are kept in the dark when it comes to gathering information for your members on the impact of privatization on prices and levels of service. Is your presence not recognized? Are you ignored? Is this simply a case of oversight? Why are you having trouble getting information?
Thirdly, regarding the use of French in the air and insofar as guarantees are concerned, we have to be very vigilant to ensure that the battles waged by Quebec in 1975 were not in vain. Have you put your recommendations regarding the use of French in aircraft to the test with representatives of the air transport industry? Have you brought this matter to the attention of the air transport industry council?
Mr. Jenner: You have asked several questions. I will try to address them all. First of all, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, much like other regional associations, worked with the advisory committee on privatization. We spent over a year discussing the future of a structure which is an integral part of the air transport system.
I agree with Mr. Smith that these meetings were very productive and that everything worked very well up until the time we agreed on the establishment of NAV CANADA. At that point, communications with representatives of the industry as a whole broke down and we, the group responsible for giving birth to the project, were excluded.
A board of directors was then elected. It was composed mainly of persons who, until that very moment, had never before heard of the air navigation system and of a number of former senior officials with major Canadian airlines and major foreign airlines.
.1035
As the representative of 80 air carriers, I was no longer in the communications loop. The board of directors of NAV CANADA is not accountable to our association, which itself is accountable to the Canadian Air Transport Association. This is one shortcoming that we have pinpointed, especially when we know that we agreed on the creation of a not-for-profit corporation.
As far as the use of French is concerned, Mr. Smith felt at the time that his colleagues who were drafting the articles of incorporation instruments had respected the French language. At the time, we made three demands.
First of all, we asked that NAV CANADA's mission statement clearly spell out the corporation's intention of promoting French in the air, because you know as well as I do that this is an extremely important issue for Quebeckers.
Secondly, we asked that the articles of incorporation be submitted in both official languages under the terms of the Canada Corporations Act. Basically, what we wanted was for NAV CANADA to be incorporated in both languages and for the interpretation section of the legislation to include a provision stipulating that French and English enjoy equal status and that the legislation must be interpreted in both languages.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Crichton and one other individual whose name I can't remember told us at the last meeting that the language matter was resolved and that the corporation's name and logo would be bilingual.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Jenner, do you mind if I ask you to cease at that point? We'll move on to another question.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I actually have very little at this point. I am going to seek a copy of this, which we will have available to us after translation. There are ways we can get a copy of your submission. I missed part of it, but I certainly will review it and give it due consideration.
One of your major concerns, as I understand it, is you do not have any information on the fee structure of NAV CANADA at this point in time. That is a concern to you?
Mr. Jenner: Our members will be the ones paying for this new system. They may not be paying the largest numbers of dollars, but they may very well be paying the largest percentages of their own budgets, to NAV CANADA.
For example, regional airlines using aircraft with fewer than 19 passengers may very well, from all my estimates, be paying somewhere between 10% and 20% of their entire budget just for ANS services. Larger airlines, on the contrary, will be going from something like 8% or 9% to something less. This is according to the economic models that were presented to us at the time I was on the advisory committee.
Our members are very worried about what the pricing structure is going to look like and what the levels of service are going to be, and they're very worried that they do not have any control over the decisions that will be made by the NAV CANADA board of directors, because in our opinion no one on the board of directors represents small to medium-sized companies.
Mr. Gouk: You are aware that the fee structure itself will not be implemented for a period of about two years?
Mr. Jenner: That's even worse. That means we have two years of apprehension before us rather than having any idea right now what's going to happen tomorrow.
Mr. Gouk: As I say, I am going to look at the hard copy of this, which I can get later on.
I'm going to defer, because I think Mr. Keyes is waiting with some information that I don't have available at the moment. He will take care of some things I think I would have asked had I had that information.
Go, Stanley.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. There's a level of cooperation here that's quite unprecedented, I suspect.
Mr. Gouk: Now we're even.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I'd like to make it known that any information I have here and that I'm going to ask questions of this witness on is contained right in the bill itself and in the book all of us have on the commercialization of NAV CAN.
.1040
I want to address the three points our witness has brought forward, if I might, the first being a more democratic representation on the board vis-à-vis regional representation, the second being the relationship to charges and the third being French in the skies.
Let's deal with the first one first: a more democratic representation on the board vis-à-vis regional representation. First of all, this all came about as a result of discussions at the advisory committee level as well as at the post-advisory committee level. I think Mr. Jenner would agree to that.
The representation on the board is contained in the book all of us have. For example, under federal government appointments, I'm sure Mr. Michel Vennat would be a little upset with our witness when he says they don't have very much representation on the board vis-à-vis Quebec. Michel Vennat is a former chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation; he's a Queen's Counsel and a partner in a Montreal, Quebec law firm.
On independent appointments, there's the adviser to the chairman of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and former chairman of the board and CEO of the Caisse de dépôt,Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme.
Then if we address regional representation on the board, there is ATAC, which represents users large and small. Then we go over to the commercial user appointments, with Mr. Iain Harris, who is representative of the regional carriers across this country.
So Mr. Chairman, I have some trouble with our witness when he says he needs a more democratic representation on the board vis-à-vis regional representation.
Do you want to address these one at a time, Mr. Jenner, or do you want me to go through all three?
Mr. Jenner: One of the most precious attributes of governance in Canada is the principle of responsible government. You are responsible to your constituency for whatever you do here.
Mr. Keyes: Absolutely.
Mr. Jenner: You do it the best you can, but you're still responsible to them, and if they're not satisfied with you, out the door you go.
With respect to the French language, you mentioned Mr. Vennat. You didn't mentionMr. Delorme, but Mr. Delorme is there.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, I did mention him.
Mr. Jenner: Did you? All right.
So you have two people from the province of Quebec on the board of directors. I have never met these people. Mind you, I am only the president and CEO of the biggest association in Canada representing air carriers, other than ATAC. I am only the CEO of the association representing specifically French, or the Québécois, sector of that industry. But I have never met these people.
They are not responsible to me, and they cannot be responsible to my membership, because they were named for...I don't know what reason. Your former Minister of Transport named one of them, and the other one was named by the board of directors and sits at the leave of the board of directors, or will be re-elected at the leave of the board of directors. These persons do not have any responsibility toward the constituency I represent, which is the one that is supposed to be running NAV CANADA, because the constituency I represent is industry.
You say ATAC represents regions. Well, our region says ATAC doesn't represent us. ATAC doesn't have 10 members in Quebec, and we have 80 members in Quebec. Out of 120 members, ATAC has 75 flying schools, because 10 years ago or so they merged with the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association and because they still have some incentives to flying schools, such as insurance programs and DND contracts for training of flying cadets. So they end up with actually 45 members from the -
Mr. Keyes: Because time is short, Mr. Jenner, I'm going to get to all three points.
If you're going to strike a board of directors of any kind of private sector corporation in this country, or not-for-profit corporation in fact, how big do you envision the board?
Mr. Jenner: As a member of the advisory committee, we made the board specifically big; fifteen is already a big board. The reason it was big was so we could have a considerable industry representation on that board.
Mr. Keyes: And you can imagine -
Mr. Jenner: In the very last analysis, industry representation became strictly ATAC. ATAC was the bone they threw to us regional associations at the last minute to assure us that we'd have representation and that ATAC would consult with regional associations before naming people to the board, which it did. But out of four regional associations, three recommended the same person and ATAC named somebody else named Iain Harris, who happens to have been the CEO of Air BC. I appreciate his competency and his expertise, but Air BC was operating four-engine jets. This is not necessarily what we consider to be a well-balanced representation.
.1045
In any case, our association and other associations are the representatives of regional air carriers, and if we're not satisfied that our industry is being well represented we won't ask you to change it, we'll ask you give us the tools that will allow us to continue the -
Mr. Keyes: I hear what you're saying and I would suggest that there is an advisory committee. It's struck in the by-laws of this corporation.
Mr. Jenner: It has absolutely no powers.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Jenner, I think you're cutting yourself short. I think that advisory committee can have quite sizeable powers. But that aside, we'll move to charges.
To be fair, if the negotiations haven't taken place yet between the board of directors and the users of the system, there is nothing to report to Mr. Jenner or anyone else, for that matter.
Mr. Jenner: There's nothing to report...?
Mr. Keyes: On the user charges you're asking for.
Mr. Jenner: There's nothing for me to report. I can't tell my members there's nothing to report, but as soon as there is something to report they'll have some influence through their association. This is the problem. They're worried because they have no influence over this.
Mr. Keyes: There'll be a board of directors that will negotiate directly with the users. Your allegation is that you're not getting information on user charges, but there aren't any user charges yet. That hasn't even taken place yet between the board and its users.
Mr. Jenner: I have no information as to how the user charge is going to be set up.
Mr. Keyes: Neither do we, because the board hasn't made that decision yet. It's not fair to say we're not receiving any information on user charges if those user charges haven't even been decided yet. That's all I'm saying.
Mr. Jenner: We're saying we have no information on how user charges are going to be set up.
Mr. Keyes: That has yet to be determined.
On the third point about French in the skies, let's not forget this is in the documentation, Mr. Gouk, you have in your book. We're looking at the Official Languages Act, which applies to NAV CANADA. It is subject to the Official Languages Act. I don't have that piece of legislation in front of me right now. It's in the legislation as if it were a federal institution.
The Official Languages Act establishes the right of the public to receive services and communications from institutions subject to the act, in the language of their choice. The government just moved on March 1 of this year that both of the official languages have to be used by any aircraft in this country that has a flight attendant on board. That means the flight attendant has to give the safety instructions in both official languages. We're talking about service to the public. We're talking about language of work. We're talking about participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Institutions must ensure that their workforce reflects both linguistic communities, taking into account workforce availability.
Article XX states that under the Official Languages Act corporations:
- shall maintain a name and, if adopted, any logo with the linguistic component, that has the same
meaning in French and English.
- We are loaded with the assurance for NAV CANADA to operate in this country under all the
rules set out, not only in the Official Languages Act, but also in the legislation.
Mr. Keyes: I don't know much more sufficient you can get than this.
.1050
Mr. Jenner: We would like to know why something so simple as making the statutes officially bilingual and allowing them to be interpreted in both languages - like all legislation in Canada - is such a hard thing to do.
Mr. Keyes: Aren't they?
Mr. Jenner: Look at clause 2(1) of the NAV CANADA bill, the interpretation section. It doesn't say anything about English language and we specifically asked for this. This wasn't much, and I did this specifically to avoid having to say this to you today.
It seemed to me to be the minimum safeguard against any problems with languages to simply say that NAV CANADA statutes, like any other statue in Canada, would be subject to interpretation in either language equally. It was a simple deal but it wouldn't go through. It wasn't accepted.
Mr. Keyes: On a point of clarification, are you saying that the statutes aren't in both official languages?
Mr. Jenner: I'm saying that NAV CANADA, the committee and the board of directors since then have continued to refuse to add on to -
Mr. Keyes: We have copies of the by-laws in French if that's what you're talking about.
Mr. Jenner: Under subclause 2(1), interpretation, we asked them specifically to include a paragraph saying that these by-laws are bilingual - that English and French are equal. I took a statement right out of the Canadian Constitution, section 133 -
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Jenner, but that's provided for.
Mr. Jenner: It's not provided for. It is only provided that the logo and the company name will be bilingual.
Mr. Keyes: But under the Official Languages Act they must comply, and the Official Languages is part of NAV CANADA.
Mr. Jenner: The Official Languages Act provides that they will translate. You can translate it into Chinese, but it still won't be a bilingual document that is legally interpreted in both languages.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to look into this immediately. If this is the case, then I think an adjustment has to be made immediately. But if the witness is only arguing that the service isn't outlined in one place where it is already outlined in the Official Languages Act, we're not going to write it into every clause in the bill.
Mr. Jenner: The witness is arguing that NAV CANADA has until now demonstrated an aversion to making any specific deference to the French language. If it continues to do that, NAV CANADA will continue to run up against the obstacle of language and encourage division in this country rather than unity.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jenner. I note that we are out of time. I understand thatMr. Keyes has undertaken to examine the issue, but it is the feeling of the department that it is complying with the Official Languages Act, as we do in all aspects of the federal government. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenner. We'll look into it. I understand we're going to be hearing from you next week also. Thank you.
Next is Mr. Mark T. Gordon, vice-president and president of Air Inuit.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting for the witness to get settled, I want to come back to the statement. This is how quick we work on this side of the table.
About the concern the witness just had about bilingualism, in clause 2 it's very clear that the corporation shall comply with the Department of Transport practices and procedures with respect to bilingualism in respect of the Canadian air navigation system - in effect, as of the date of incorporation of the corporation.
The protection is there on all fronts, not only as dictated by the Official Languages Act but incorporated in part of the Aeronautics Act, part of the Navigation Act and also in a clause in this legislation itself, clause 2, which ensures that the practices and procedures of bilingualism in this country apply.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Before I allow any more discussion on this point, I note that Mr. Gordon does not appear to be present. Is Dorothy McDonald or Al Nimo from the Central Air Carriers Association here? If you're both present, then to facilitate things perhaps I could ask you to come forward and make your presentation now. We'll just switch you with Mr. Gordon.
.1055
Mr. Gouk: May I make a quick comment while they're setting up? It's relevant to this -
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, I am loathe to start into discussion of that, given that it might provoke yet another intervention, which I might wish to avoid, given the pressures of time. I will take it as read -
Mr. Gouk: How eloquently you put it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. I appreciate your comments.
Now, would you be Dorothy McDonald?
Ms Dorothy McDonald (Director, Central Air Carriers Association): Yes, I'm Dorothy McDonald. Greetings from Winnipeg.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dorothy. I would ask you to keep your introductory remarks to ten minutes so we will have sufficient time for a round of questioning by all members.
Ms McDonald: The submission today is on behalf of the Central Air Carriers Association. The Central Air Carriers Association, as its name implies, is an organization located in the traditional Transport Canada ``central region'', with a membership of some 30 to 35 operators comprised of bush pilots operating float and ski planes in northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and northwestern Ontario, fixed-wing and helicopter charter services, small and medium air carriers operating medivac, charter and schedule services, often in challenging conditions, and a number of flight training schools. Many of us offer extensive service to Canada's northern communities and Canada's first nations.
As medium and small carriers, our membership operates out of small or community airports - in the case of helicopters, no airports - with minimal services. Many have found it financially prohibitive to belong to the organization this committee knows as ATAC. I wish to make it clear that on the issue of ANS privatization and on the subject of appointments to the board of directors, ATAC does not speak for the Central Air Carriers Association, nor do we support the appointments made by ATAC to the board.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Ms McDonald. I'm sorry to interrupt. Did you supply the committee with a copy of your brief?
Ms McDonald: I have 28 copies of it. I'm just reading the highlights from that now.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could give them to the clerk so we can circulate them. I'm sorry for not asking for that at the beginning.
Ms McDonald: For purposes of brevity, Mr. Chairman, I'm editing it slightly in the oral submission.
Our major concerns about Bill C-20 are the pricing and the levels of service. Nothing is known. Little information has been shared with the Central Air Carriers Association. All we know is that Bill C-20 would have this new board of directors pay $1.5 billion to the federal government to purchase a bunch of obsolete navigational equipment that we have already paid for as taxpayers and that a user-pay system will require us to pay for it all over again.
The NAV CANADA newsletter of February 19, 1996, which proclaims itself as a new star in the sky, would have us believe this money will all go to pay down the federal debt. Pardon my cynicism, but Canadians were told that about the GST too.
The NAV CANADA newsletter also quotes K. Copeland, president and CEO of NAV CANADA, as follows. This is a direct quote from their newsletter:
- Air navigation is a high technology business which is undergoing significant change. The ANS
is evolving from a land-based navigation system to an integrated space-based system for
navigation, communication and surveillance. This new space-based technology will make
obsolete many of the present ground-based navigation aids.
.1100
By how much are costs going to go up? For all of our members costs will increase. We are not aware of any exemption in Bill C-20 for VFR flight or the advisories and briefings and filings that are needed in VFR flight. Most of our operators are day VFR; many operate IFR. But on that VFR issue, which I've heard being raised here a couple of times, we're not aware of any exemption.
At the moment, flying as we do in the bush or up north, many of us are using American military-owned, satellite-based GPS and pay no fees to the ANS for the limited use we make of those services. Once NAV CANADA will have the right to charge fees, it will have to look for some way in which to charge us for, with respect, the inaccurate weather briefings we receive or the useless remote advisories they give us at places such as Wasagamack, Manitoba, which they cannot even pronounce.
As small carriers, we can say, with the certainty reserved usually only for death and taxes, that our costs will - pardon the pun - skyrocket.
I'd like to give an example of a regional carrier. If this aircraft carrier operates aircraft under 18,000 pounds, currently there is no air transportation tax on its tickets. Under this new regime, from the costing formulas, their accountants have given me figures that indicate that the direct operating costs of a standard 300-mile flight between Winnipeg and Garden Hill will increase by 30%. The economic impact on the regional carriers in the central region will be astronomical. The 30% DOC will lead to an 11% increase in the fare that will have to be charged on those tickets. That kind of cost is something you cannot absorb.
We echo Mr. Jenner's statements that we have not been given information as to services, what cuts, what fees - who knows? We do not know what services will be cut under NAV CANADA, as it is evident that in smaller airports in remoter communities the volume will not permit true cost recovery. What then?
Are air navigation services, hitherto deemed essential to flight safety, to be removed because cost recovery is not available?
In Manitoba we have seen services cut to the point that safety is, in our view, at risk. For example, Thompson Airport, which has daily 737 service, has lost its control tower.
Our CACA members have little confidence in the ANS privatization as proposed in Bill C-20, as it is evident to our members that the board of directors is monopolized by large carriers who are remote from the activities, issues, and concerns of our membership.
A very wise old pilot once said to me that decisions about the future of aviation in Canada should not be left up to people who have never had to pay for even one litre of their own fuel. Ask this of the NAV CANADA directorship as portrayed in this newsletter.
We are fearful that costs under the so-called privatization scheme will result in economic hardship for small carriers.
General aviation is in crisis in Canada today. I'm not sure if the committee understands that.
In July 1994 we were hit with the national airport policy, which consists, in our view, of the wholesale abandonment of Canada's smaller airports. The fall-out on our members is ongoing. Will runways be kept clear of snow in the brave new world of the NAP? Landing fees, departure fees, airport maintenance fees, airport operators' liability insurance costs, and airport improvement levies, such as at YVR, are additional financial burdens for carriers now and will be in the near future. All these costs will be passed on to the carriers who are based at the airports.
The introduction of myriad fees by Transport Canada in March 1995 has contributed further to the crisis. For example, a new pilot in Canada now pays an additional $300 for his licence. If ANS charges are added on and charged to flight training schools, then flight training schools will not be viable and those pilots will head south of the border.
.1105
Air carriers also face the daunting and prohibitively expensive task of recertifying under the new Canadian aviation regulations, which are obsoleting everything we all knew till this time. In 1991, with the introduction of the GST in Canada, every small air carrier in Canada was made an unpaid tax collector for the federal government. Till that time there was no tax, no PST, of any kind on the services provided by small or medium carriers or charter services. The costs of collecting and administering the GST have all fallen on the heads of the carriers. We have not been able to increase our tariffs because our tariffs went up 7% thanks to the federal government.
The inability to increase our tariffs is very bad for us, because the cost of fuel and the rate of exchange on aircraft parts, which are manufactured only in the U.S., have caused our costs to increase dramatically. We have had to put up with cuts to essential services at airports that are not protected by the NAP. We have had to put up with AWOS systems that jeopardize flight safety, a fact well documented in the media and in the accident reports - and I`m very grateful to see Mr. Gouk`s comments today in this committee. With Bill C-20 and the privatization of the ANS and the introduction of user fees, all those costs will have to be added on to our tariffs.
For many of us the federal and provincial governments and Canada's first nations are major users of our services. We will be forced to add these new user costs to the invoices we bill our customers. The net result for many of our carriers will be that the federal and provincial governments will pay more for helicopter fire-fighting, for example. Canada`s first nations, who are major users, will pay more. Cargo costs for people in the north will dramatically increase. Many of these communities are only air accessible. The Canadian taxpayer will be the big loser because the taxpayer paid for the ANS and through the billings, at least in our region, will be paying for it all over again.
The margin for small carriers, of which our membership is comprised, is very fine. There is no room for carriers to absorb the costs that will be charged to them in a user-pay ANS as envisaged by Bill C-20. Passing these costs on to our customers results in increased prices, which cause volume to drop. Either way the carrier loses.
There is much talk of the new technology, the satellite-based navigational systems. Canada must remember that these satellites belong to the American military and they can lock us out at any time. Canada should proceed with great caution in dismantling the air navigation system it has built up. The satellites do not belong to us and NAV CANADA, in my humble view, is in no position to fund the purchase and launch of its own satellites. From the standpoint of sovereignty and national security, we should not be abandoning our air navigation system to a private group, no matter how well intentioned.
General aviation is an industry in crisis. Many operators are suffering fatigue from the sheer ennui and stress of the onslaught. Our industry has suffered from the federal government this decade. In the past some have come eagerly before committees such as yours, or written spirited submissions in good faith, only to be ignored. Please don`t let the Central Air Carriers Association come away from your committee with that sentiment.
The level of demoralization in the small carrier sector of general aviation is so great that someone who has the power to say ``stop'' must do so. Put the brakes on cost-cutting and take a moment to reflect on the role of the bush pilots who opened up this country and made it great. Don't make the mistake of comparing Canada to New Zealand. Don`t put us out of business by allowing Bill C-20 as it now stands to proceed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms McDonald.
We will now begin a round of questions, beginning with Mr. St-Laurent.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Welcome.
.1110
Judging from what you have just said, I take it you feel the air navigation system should remain the government's responsibility. Have I understood you correctly or would you prefer instead that responsibility fall somewhere in between the private sector and the government?
[English]
Ms McDonald: There are large issues of sovereignty and national security that I can't purport to debate in such a committee, but the concept of introducing efficiencies into a system to enable cost-effective services to be provided should not be something the government cannot do.
Unfortunately, the reality seems to be that commercialization of the ANS might effect cost savings, but there are very important political and philosophical underpinnings when one is making that decision because of the larger issues of sovereignty and national security.
We support making it more cost-effective, whether it be under government regime or under commercialization.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: Like most small carriers in general, you want to be consulted about the charges that will be imposed. Isn't there some way of including a preamble in the legislation which would stipulate that safety components must be taken into account before charges are evaluated and that these charges must be in line with the costs borne by the small, rather than the large, carriers? In my opinion, the small carriers would be at a bit of a disadvantage? What is your opinion? Could such a preamble be included in the draft legislation? Would you be more comfortable with the bill if this were the case?
[English]
Ms McDonald: Hypothetically, in the preamble, the concept of user pay, user say is there. But it's evident to us that like the smaller carriers - as echoed by Brian Jenner - we are going to be asked to pay but we are not going to have a say. That's not fair.
Canada does not just consist of the fourteen NAP airports. Canada is a vast, wild country. Cost cutting should never compromise safety - and that's another side of the coin, whether the government should even be looking at abandoning the airports and abandoning the ANS, because it's not just the issue of.... To whom do we owe the opening up of this country?
Grant McConachie was a bush pilot who started the airline that ultimately evolved into Canadian. We're all forgetting that it was the people who did what our members are doing now who opened up this country. Canada is abandoning general aviation wholesale, and even the CALPA gentleman indicated today that general aviation is the origin and the source of the pilots who will sit in his seat in the next generation.
General aviation encompasses the flight training schools and the smaller charter operators that give everybody their start. We fly the people into the NAP airports. If we weren't flying them in, they wouldn't be getting on the major airlines and enabling us to have this debate about having an ANS privatization, because nobody is going to drive 1,000 miles to get onto an airplane. Air travel would just come to a standstill and, as I think I've heard others say, we would go back to the horse and buggy days.
.1115
We have to look at balancing the costs, certainly against the safety. When we're out there flying in the north and all we get is this little beam of a radar that sends up...and it appears to be a sunny day, even though there's a blizzard all around except for in that spot, that AWOS isn't good enough. It saves money. Right now we have a situation in Island Lake, Manitoba, where we used to have human beings giving weather forecasts at the two airports there, and we don't have that now. Those human beings were terminated to save money, but now they receive welfare. So you have to look at that.
The Chairman: Ms McDonald, may I interrupt? I suspect that you may be asked another question on AWOS. I'm not certain, but I suspect you will. I'll move on to Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: You're wrong, Mr. Chairman. There's no need to ask the lady a question on AWOS. She's made her opinion, which coincides with mine, abundantly clear. Thank you.
Ms McDonald: For good reason, sir.
Mr. Gouk: Yes.
First of all, I agree with a lot of what you've said and I am concerned about many of the things you're concerned about, but I would like to clear up something. The $1.5 billion that is being paid for the ANS system is largely not for the obsolete navigation aids that are out there. It's for the air control centres, the control towers, the radar systems. I have some concerns about the amount of obsolete equipment they're buying, and I suspect that NAV CANADA negotiated to some extent with a gun at their head, saying that's the deal. If you want to buy this, that's the way you have to take it.
You're correct that they bought obsolete equipment, but it's nowhere near $1.5 billion worth. It's something substantially lower.
Ms McDonald: With all the money that Canada gives everybody else, I don't know why we are saddling the private corporations with this kind of debt. It's shocking.
Mr. Gouk: It's to save the government some embarrassment for having bought this obsolete stuff in the first place, I would suspect.
Ms McDonald: It's perhaps not as obsolete as all that. We have a ground-based system now over which we have absolute control and sovereignty.
Mr. Gouk: Well, we could get into a long debate on what's obsolete.
You mentioned your concern about loss of services in northern and remote areas. Do you not find any comfort in the legislation, which makes it clear that before NAV CANADA can reduce or abandon any of these services, there has to be a full consultation with those concerned with those services in the north? If one-third of the operators in there want that service to continue, it has to, unless they get special permission from the government, which you're saying is the alternative to not taking it out of the government's hands in the first place. So it would in any case come back to the government, unless basically everybody there agreed, in which case I suppose we shouldn't say we have a problem.
Ms McDonald: I appreciate that, but we don't see any way that our carriers or the Quebec association or the Canadian association get a voice. If the board is the voice, they don't speak for us. ATAC does not speak for the carriers of Canada. I'd like to make it very clear that they do not speak for our association.
Mr. Gouk: I understand that well, but what I'm saying is that specifically with regard to your concern about the removal of this ground-based equipment and other services out of the north, the legislation prevents NAV CANADA from doing that unless they have almost complete agreement with those operators and users in the north or they apply to and get permission from the government to do so.
Ms McDonald: This comes back down to the concept of user pay, user say. If in fact there is going to be a prohibitive charge each time we get a remote advisory from Winnipeg for something going on 1,000 miles away, we don't want it. We don't want to be charged for that advisory at a remote airport in the north when this person is sitting in Winnipeg and doesn't know what's going on anyhow. That's just our view. What we would say as users is eliminate that service; we don't want to pay for it.
To the extent that this advisory system was deemed by Transport Canada in its wisdom to be an essential service, does it then become less essential because we as users say we don't want to pay for it? The reality is that we can't pay for it. In remote communities, in areas where there is not the volume that you have at Pearson or Vancouver or even Regina, you can't have cost recovery. Philosophically, I think the transport committee has to make a decision. Is it going to support general aviation in Canada or is it going to throw us to the dogs? That's what it has come down to.
There are many members who, when you talk to them, are so demoralized. I swear to God that we'll all be heading down south of the border because that's the way many of us feel.
.1120
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, thank you. Mr. Keyes is next.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe there's some concern out in the industry that Ms McDonald speaks of because they're not being properly informed of what's in the bill. For example, Ms McDonald, I trust you have read the bill?
Ms McDonald: I have perused the more salient portions of it.
Mr. Keyes: For example, you say, ``We'll be asked to pay, but we'll have no say''. Given what's contained in clause 37 of the bill, that's a rather curious statement.
May I have your interpretation of clauses 36 and 37 concerning charges, for example? The bill says that there'll be notice of the revised charges. The contents will be given out. It says how notice will be given and how announcements of new or revised charges will be given. The charge may be different from the charges proposed in the notice; it says how that must be dealt with. It talks about contents of the announcement to the users and stakeholders in the system, how the announcement has to be made, the timing of the announcement, when the charges can be proposed, not implemented. After all that and all the representation by industry, like you, copies have to go out for that, whereby more representation can be made.
Are you aware of all this?
Ms McDonald: First let me ask you this: if communication was so good, why has the Quebec association expressed such concern when that gentleman was on the advisory committee?
Mr. Keyes: Because that gentleman is pressing a point on language. It goes beyond reasonableness.
Ms McDonald: Well, I would just have to echo what he says on the subject for the central air carriers. Certainly what we had - -
Mr. Keyes: Ms McDonald, I've asked you a question. Are you aware of the process? I ask this because you were the one who said, ``We're being asked to pay, but we have no say''. In fact, you do have a say. You have a lot of say.
Ms McDonald: I want you to understand the nature of the carriers in the central region.
Mr. Keyes: But we're talking about your people.
Ms McDonald: We are not big carriers.
The Chairman: Perhaps I will moderate the debate here a little bit. Ms McDonald.
Ms McDonald: We are not big carriers who have people on staff who can sit down and read all this stuff when it comes down the tubes, sit down and make submissions, and then fly to Ottawa. Most of the operations consist of maybe five to six people. Sometimes the chief pilot is the president of the company. You've got your hands full in trying to run your business in Canada.
When you get these kinds of things, it's very tough for smaller operators, who cannot afford the luxury of staff persons to make these representations. So the reality is that sometimes the response isn't made. It's a default; I admit that. It should be made. But with smaller, general aviation firms, that's sometimes just the way it goes.
Mr. Keyes: Then, given all of this information I've just given you on where the users, such as you and the individuals you represent, have a lot of say in whether or not charges, from revision to implementation...given all of the opportunity, will you retract the statement that you have no say?
Ms McDonald: At this point in time we don't feel as if we have any say. The recommendation that we made for the board of directors was ignored. That makes us feel as if we have no say. I cannot retract the statement, because, with respect, it's not consistent with my understanding.
Mr. Keyes: With respect, Ms McDonald, then you obviously have a lack of understanding of the legislation and a lack of understanding of where all of the opportunity is for the users to come forward to make representations on any changes in charges.
Ms McDonald: That's why I'm here today. I appreciate what you have said to the earlier presenters, that there will be negotiations to set the levels of the pricing and the services, but our concern is, will our association have representation in those negotiations?
Mr. Keyes: My concern, too, is that everybody has to pay their way. That includes your organization and its members. If we can find a fairer and better way for that fee to be not only administered but also collected, or even impose whatever that fee level may be, then so be it. For example, I might ask you if, instead of a per-flight thing, you or your organization or members would be prepared to pay a flat fee that would be fair, because you are using a service, but not onerous enough to make it difficult for the owner to pay.
.1125
Ms McDonald: That is something I'm sure our membership would consider. It's not been put to us. If this consultation is going to be as good as you say it is, then I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to consider that. At this point we haven't.
Mr. Keyes: I'll leave all that on an up note, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes and Ms McDonald. Perhaps the two of you could get together and share some information.
Thank you very much for making your presentation today.
Before members move from their seats, I note we are one presenter short. What I would like to do, given that this concludes the witnesses for today, is to ask members to hold on for a five-minute in camera meeting.
[Proceedings continue in camera]