Finance Committee on Nov. 17th, 2014

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to focus my questions on Mr. Gooch, please.

I actually have quite a number of aerodromes in my riding. I've been talking with members of COPA for quite a number of months on this issue and on the potential changes coming with this.

I just want to read from proposed subsections 4.31(1) and (2) in division 2. I want to know which section is the piece that you think has the unintended consequences. The first reads as follows:(1) The Minister may make an order prohibiting the development or expansion of a given aerodrome or any change to the operation of a given aerodrome, if, in the Minister’s opinion, the proposed development, expansion or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest.

The exemption clause then states:(2) An order under subsection (1) is exempt from examination, registration or publication under the Statutory Instruments Act.

Which piece and which wording do you find is the unintended consequence that is particularly tough for your group?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I think what's tough is that there is no threshold date. With the aerodromes it's writ large. If this language was intended to deal with just the private aerodromes, we would like to see some language that constrained the airports that were captured by it.

We've had lawyers review the language in question. The response I got back from them is multiple pages. I don't want to testify to the legality of it. Really, we've taken it as a package. The language as it's crafted captures far more aerodromes than we understand to have been intended. It's raised enough concern with our members that they want us to go on the record and suggest that the language be changed.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Have you talked with any of the COPA organizations about this as well?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

We have. I'm familiar with their concerns. I haven't spoken with them this week, but we are aware that they have issues with this as well.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Were you part of the focus group process that Transport Canada did?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Our organization was part of that. It was someone on my staff who participated back in February. I understand it included a discussion about some of the examples that were of concern to the department.

My understanding of the focus group was that it was about the perceived problems, as opposed to perhaps the language that was going to be proposed to address those problems.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'm looking at the COPA brief to the committee. The requirement to consult would be limited to new aerodromes and construction on those aerodromes.

Was that the take-away that your organization had from these consultations as well?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Our understanding is that is the focus of the department's exercise in this area.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

If this COPA thing is right, the draft report reflects a strong consensus by industry participants that the applicability of the requirement to consult should be to new aerodromes only.

From the standpoint of a person who has one of these aerodromes—maybe they have planes that are spraying, or whatever it happens to be—there's nothing really there to protect them. The minister can make a decision based on a complaint, and then it would be overridden by the subsection that there be no statutory instruments. They could close that down. It's like the guy who moves out from the city and then complains about the farm because he moved next to it.

I'm wondering whether we are setting ourselves up for the same thing.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I think it's fair to say that there's a great deal of uneasiness about the powers that have been written into that part of the language.

Again, it goes to unintended consequences. As I testified, we don't believe that this minister wants to turn back the clock on the national airports policy. We don't believe that's the case. We have a good relationship with the minister and her staff in the department, and we take them at their word.

However, sometimes things like this can move forward and have unintended consequences in the future—future governments and future ministers of transport. That's our concern.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I think we all want this to be safe.

We want to make sure that these aerodromes are safe, so there has to be some provision in there. If there's some wording that makes sense to capture that, then that might be helpful.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

We certainly will follow up with some actual language to suggest to the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We'll go to Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to everyone for appearing today.

I only have five minutes, and if I may, I'm going to start with Mr. Gooch and pick it up where Mr. Allen left off.

I won't read the section that we're talking about again, but when it talks about the public interest, is there any policy you are familiar with that tries to put some meat on the bones of that broad phrase?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

As it relates to this particular language, no.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So it's whatever the minister says is in the public interest.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

It's subject to being defined, I guess.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You used an expression a while ago. You talked about the depoliticization with the national airports policy. It's being repoliticized, it would seem to me, by what they are doing here in giving the minister absolute discretion to define what's in the public interest.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

It certainly opens the door to repoliticizing it, yes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Again, Mr. Allen read this out. Any order that the minister happens to make is exempt from any kind of publication under the Statutory Instruments Act, so there's none of that accountability that applies to regulations or the like either. It's all just whatever the minister happens to announce.

That's what this section says, does it not?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

The language is pretty broad.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

This is for Mr. Drummond.

You heard my colleague Mr. Cullen, just at the edge of his chair when he was....

I guess I'll take up the challenge and ask you a bit about the climate change agenda. I suppose the concerns we would have as a committee, and certainly as the opposition, is that the climate change research agenda of CHARS will not been attenuated as a result of these amendments.

Could you give us some comfort in that regard? Will you still be able to undertake an independent research agenda? Has anything changed?

[Dr. James Drummond]

I'm not able to answer on the specifics of the CHARS mandate for climate change research. It's my understanding that the mandate will be maintained in the new organization.

I know my members are heavily involved in many aspects of climate change research in the Arctic. They would hope that if this new organization came to be, there would be a greater degree of coordination, which could sort of raise it to the next level.

As I mentioned in my notes, one of the things we are realizing is the degree of interconnectedness that is necessary to tackle these problems. It's one of the reasons that CNNRO was formed.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think many of you have talked about the synergies and the coordination that this now would allow as a positive, but I'm wondering if there's a danger of putting all of our eggs in one basket, so this question is for Dr. Hik.

I think you used the expressions “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-Canada” mandate. I know that you've been working in various northern research stations including, I think, Kluane Lake in the Yukon, and I know that we're talking more about Ellesmere Island and Cambridge Bay. What about the other research stations in the north? Is there a concern you would have that this coordination could lead to us diluting the research being conducted at other northern research centres?

[Dr. David Hik]

I think that's probably unlikely. From the very beginning, CHARS was conceived as a hub-and-spoke model.

I know that the emphasis now is on the facility at Cambridge Bay, but one of the things Dr. Drummond emphasized was that there is a network of other facilities, many of them operated by universities, territorial governments, or other bodies. I think this is where CHARS, as an organization, will be able to advance very quickly. It's not just about coordination. It's about capacity. We have scientists across the country, across the north, and internationally, who are collaborating already. What we're going to do is give them better resources to do that work.