Finance Committee on Nov. 17th, 2014

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's on the mental side, right?

[Jenn McIntyre]

I mean the cuts to refugee health care.

If it's in line with that decision-making on legislation, then I really don't see this as being any different.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

I'm good, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

We'll go to Mr. Keddy for seven minutes, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Mr. Gooch, to be fair, you're not saying that the minister shouldn't be responsible for new aerodromes that are being built across the country. Is that correct?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

We have no quibbles that additional regulatory powers over private aerodromes may be needed. Certainly we consulted with the department on that. There were concerns about some private aerodromes that were under development. We had discussions with the government on that. Certainly there are safety and security considerations. We don't question the intent of the language; we just think the language is perhaps a little too broad as it's currently crafted.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

But there are a number of areas that, quite frankly, the minister should have responsibility for—certainly safety and certainly immigration processes—because there are private aerodromes with small planes that leave and come back that may be owned by an individual, and there are other ones that are owned jointly, that are cooperatives, and there's the whole municipal level of aerodromes as well. Somebody has to have some regulation over these. The idea that you can simply go out and build an aerodrome regardless of safety factors with respect to the neighbouring subdivision.... To me it would make sense that we need more regulation here. Believe me, I'm not a big fan of more regulation.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

If I may, sir, certainly we're not so familiar with the problems, or the perceived problems, that led to the language. I'm more familiar with the concerns about the unintended consequences. Certainly there are a great number of rules around safety and security in aviation today. Since this language affects the airports that are my members, we have concerns about how it is crafted and the fact that it encompasses so many airports in addition to those for which it's intended.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you for that.

With regard to the International Arctic Science Committee, Mr. Hik, one of the comments you made was that this should allow us to diversify and to actually work on projects that are beyond the scope of any single nation, so there should be cooperation among Arctic nations, and even non-Arctic nations. Any time you bring in change and set up a new agency, there's always some discussion around that.

For example, with the discovery of Franklin's vessel, for the first time in the High Arctic, we had that public-private partnership on an international scale. We have such a narrow window of time in which to work in the High Arctic. Certainly we work there 365 days of the year, but most people go to the Arctic for six weeks. Sometimes they go for eight weeks, but it's a very narrow window. The more cooperation and the more information we can get, whether from the Russians or from Siberia or from the Norwegians, is a positive step and it's a step in the right direction to have that one single agency at least as the umbrella.

[Dr. David Hik]

I agree with you. One of the observations I would make about the legislation as it is crafted right now is that there's not a compelling mandate there for CHARS to require the exchange of information among departments and agencies. That certainly is available at the reporting stage, but we found that it's very important at the planning stage, and sometimes that can be a year or two years or three years in advance of some of these programs. The operational, logistic, and infrastructure requirements of getting aircraft, icebreakers, equipment, and people into the Arctic region requires that planning, so one suggestion I'd make is that the legislation could strengthen the whole-of-government planning and investment in Arctic research coordination. That is implicit, but it would benefit from being explicit in CHARS.

It's not that it won't happen, but our observation, from working with international partners, is that it must happen if we're going to be effective in those types of partnerships. There are a number of examples of where that type of coordination between countries has fallen apart, and the research that was intended was not feasible.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I love the whole-of-government approach. It's always difficult to actually put into implementation, but the idea behind it is certainly correct.

We have a number of issues. There are three people who spoke about sea level rise. We have greenhouse gas emissions. We have archeological sites that are in danger of being lost. We have a west Greenland salmon fishery that's decimated the fishery on the eastern coast of North America. We have a turbot fishery in a new area that is in the middle of climate change. We need to cooperate with one another, and the more we do it, and every step in that direction, to me, is the right step.

I don't know if there's time—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Who would would want to make a brief comment?

[Dr. David Hik]

It's fine. I think there's an opportunity to do that in the act, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Colleagues, we'll move to five-minute rounds.

Mr. Caron, go ahead.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their presentations. I will begin with Mr. Gooch.

The legislation's wording has been discussed. You said that you did not know how the wording could be changed to avoid the negative effects of such a measure, which gives a lot more power to the minister. Could you think about this and submit to the committee a suggestion on what terms should be used to avoid those potentially negative effects going forward? That wouldn't be too difficult for you, would it?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Caron.

We could look at the wording and suggest some sort of an amendment over the next few days.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Were you consulted on that provision of the bill before it was drafted? You knew that the department was looking into the possibility of doing that, but did it conduct consultations on the exact wording of the proposed measure?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I will answer in English.

In terms of the exact language, we hadn't seen it, but as I said, certainly we knew of the issue that drove this proposal to amend the Aeronautics Act. We were aware of the issue in question, and we were given a heads-up that language was coming, but the language itself we saw after it was introduced.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

What event or specific issue led the department or the government to tackle this matter? Did a particular factor or situation lead to the need to implement this measure or amend the legislation?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I would prefer not to go into what motivated the minister. We were told that there was a concern with private aerodromes generally. There may have been a project or two that were of particular concern, but I really think it's probably best left to the minister's office to testify on her motivations.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Were there any noise complaints from a particular community or individuals living close to a private aerodrome? Were there complaints over noise pollution.

Would this measure empower the minister to force the aerodrome in question to make changes in response to complaints?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

The question you've asked is really about a non-physical change to the airport. Again, I don't have the language here, but I don't believe it's covered by that. You've asked about aircraft noise. Those complaints are often related to changes in flight paths. Certainly our airports work very actively in the community to consult on changes with Nav Canada, which is the authority that is usually involved.

We've been in discussions with the government, Nav Canada, and the air carriers towards a new protocol that will strengthen the expectations around changes to airspace, for example. But that's a non-physical change affecting a community, so I don't believe it's covered by the language in question. It is certainly something that our members take very seriously. As I said, we're working directly with Transport Canada and our partners in the air carrier community and Nav Canada in other ways to address the concerns related to aircraft noise in particular.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to Ms. McIntyre.

The provision that enables provinces to impose minimum periods of residence before providing social assistance is reminiscent of the measure related to health care for refugees.

When it comes to social assistance, the provision in the current legislation and the health care provision I mentioned—cessation of health care delivery for refugees referred to by the court—concerns refugee claimants and not refugee claimants whose claim has been denied. Is that right?

[Jenn McIntyre]

It would affect people who were rejected, but this provision would also affect people who are awaiting their refugee hearing. Fifty-five per cent of refugee claims are accepted, so it would affect people who are determined to be convention refugees.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Caron.

We'll go to Mr. Allen, please, for five minutes.