Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Yes, thank you.

Ms. Beck, I would like to go back to your statement that Air Canada shareholders can file a complaint. With whom can they file a complaint?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I'll turn to my legal colleague.

[John Thachet]

Again, going back to what Ms. Beck mentioned earlier, there are two different obligations. The second obligation is between Air Canada and the shareholders. If the shareholders believe that Air Canada is not living up to the obligations, then they have a wide variety of avenues open to them, more than the CBCA—that's the Canada Business Corporations Act—and common law.

Under the Canada Business Corporations Act, they could approach a court and seek an order that Air Canada comply with its own articles. The powers of the court in those circumstances are pretty wide. In fact, the section reads to the effect that the court can order what it thinks appropriate in the circumstances. So it's a pretty wide—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I'm a lawyer. Please don't lecture me on law. We're going to stop talking in parables. I'm asking you a direct question. In 2007, Air Canada sold its operational services to Aveos. Under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, does Aveos have an obligation to maintain operational centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga, or can that company transfer those jobs to El Salvador? What is your interpretation of the act? When Air Canada sold its operational services, it needed money, or wanted to get out of something. They had reasons for selling. Do you honestly think that Air Canada's shareholders will go and file a complaint? They're the ones who sold the operational services. Come on, you shouldn't treat us like imbeciles.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Thank you.

Aveos is not covered by the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The obligations that exist on Air Canada are the only obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. As a result of the restructuring that took place in 2004, the then Air Canada technical services unit moved out from an in-house function in Air Canada into a separate entity, a distinct entity, under the holding company ACE. When it moved out from within Air Canada, it ceased to be part of the obligations to Air Canada under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. So Air Canada remains under the obligations that exist under the act. It continues to have to comply with the articles of continuance, and it continues to do so. And Aveos is not covered by ACPPA.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

In other words, if Air Canada tells us that it no longer has operational centres and that it has sold them to Aveos, why are you saying that Air Canada still has an obligation to maintain operational centres? Gone with the wind.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Again, I don't want to get into questions of interpretation, but I would say that the obligation that exists on Air Canada through its articles of continuance is a very general obligation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the three locations. It is not specific in terms of level of activity or scope, and it would not preclude creation or continuation of other functions outside of Air Canada directly, through Aveos.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

In your opinion, Ms. Beck, are Aveos employees employees of Air Canada or Aveos?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The employees of Aveos are Aveos employees. Many of them come from Air Canada originally. And I understand, as I indicated in my opening comments, that there is a certification issue before the CIRB right now in terms of separating the certification of those employees under the machinists' association, in terms of those who will continue to be certified under Air Canada and those who would be certified under Aveos. So there is a process in play right now to separate the certification.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

You're saying that they're employees of Air Canada—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Guimond. Your time is up.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate having you here. It's late at night.

Mr. Crichton and Mr. Eley, you've had a little bit of a break, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions.

You know, panel, we really are just trying to get to the “plain” truth here—whichever spelling you decide you want to use.

I live in York Region, and we have a slightly different issue going on in York Region with the Buttonville Airport, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I have lived in York Region long enough to have seen Toronto move north. York Region has expanded, and what was never intended to be an urban airport has suddenly become an urban airport. Of course, I flew out of the Toronto airport when it was still called Malton and there was no Mississauga—it was Port Credit—and Brampton was a long way away.

Many of these urban centres have grown up around these smaller airports, and we really do have quite a conundrum right now in York Region because the Buttonville Airport has been the only accessible airport for emergency landings for York Region. There are quite a number of corporate headquarters that have grown up in the Markham area and into Richmond Hill, so quite a number of those corporate headquarters have maintained corporate airplanes at the Buttonville Airport. Now, for a variety of reasons—and I'm not saying the growth around has been the sole problem—we're losing the Buttonville Airport. It's being sold. It's a private airport and they have the right to do that, but I am absolutely confident that one of the reasons that has come into play here has been the noise that has been a problem in the area.

Nav Canada says they do a consultation process; Transport Canada says they do a consultation process. Can you expand on what the consultation process looks like? Are the municipalities involved with that? When growth is happening in an area, are developers part of that consultation process? And do you consult with each other? Do you combine your reports, or are they two separate areas?

Does growth change the patterns for the routing? I suppose Nav Canada would have to answer that one.

[John Crichton]

I should clarify that we're indicating, as a result of what happened in Vancouver, that in the future we will consult. But the consultation that we've been involved in up until now has really simply been through our membership on the airport noise management committees. So that consultation is really done by the airports themselves and we're just a technical adviser to the committee. But because of the unique incident in Vancouver, we're saying, in the future, when we are planning those types of changes, which are quite a distance away from the airport, actually, we will consult on that. Heretofore, it has not been a problem. So we will consult.

[Martin Eley]

Just a comment on the airports, where there is a need to consult the community.... The third leg that I was having trouble remembering earlier on is the land use management. Part of that strategy is to make sure that the local authorities define the land use to be appropriate in the region, and that normally, within certain noise boundaries, would not include residential, for example. So part of that strategy is to deal with that. That is not necessarily the case in Buttonville, I would say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there.

I'm going to go to one final round of two minutes. I would ask you to keep it as close as possible.

Mr. Dhaliwal, two minutes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Mr. Crichton.

On the nighttime air cargo flights moving over my riding of Surrey South, Guildford, those areas, I'm sure you heard many concerns that there is noise that exceeds or does not meet the chapter 3 requirements of those hush-kitted 727s. Is there a way that we should keep on allowing those noisy airplanes to fly over populated areas, or do you think there should be some alternative to it?

[John Crichton]

Again, I don't want to be ducking the question, but Nav Canada has absolutely no jurisdiction on the aircraft noise standards.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

How about Mr. Eley, then?

[Martin Eley]

All the aircraft, even the 727s and the older 737s, meet the current ICAO requirements. Noise standards, like safety standards, define the minimum safety level, the minimum noise level. A lot of modern aircraft exceed those. The aircraft you're talking about do comply. They are considered to be within noise limits.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Do you think they should be allowed to fly even at night? That's the question.

[Martin Eley]

The individual airports have noise abatement procedures, which in many cases include a curfew, which applies to all categories of aircraft.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay.

My question to Nav Canada is this. Nav Canada is consulted by the airport authority, which is not accountable to the public. In fact, the way I see it, the only agency that's responsible is Transport Canada, through the minister, but others are not accountable to the public. When Nav Canada provides input to airport authorities when developing airport noise abatement standards, is your advice a mandatory implementation, or is it just a mere recommendation that's not implemented?

[John Crichton]

It would depend on the specifics. We have certain separation standards and procedures in air traffic control. If somebody was going to propose something that would violate those standards, well, then, we would have recourse to put a stop to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond, two minutes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm speaking to you once again, Ms. Beck.

In your view, Aveos employees are not Air Canada employees, are they?