Evidence of meeting #43 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was carriers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
We didn't explore it with the Americans. We did an analysis internally at Transport Canada—
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
—a few years ago, and we were confident that it was not something that had a promising future at this point in time.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Parliamentary Secretary Gill, and thanks to our witnesses.
This is a very exciting topic. Coming from and representing the Kelowna—Lake Country in the Okanagan, we have YLW as your link to the world—our call letters. We have an international airport, the 10th busiest in Canada and growing by leaps and bounds. Globalization of air traffic for commerce is very important for all of our ridings. It is a big economic engine for our Okanagan Valley, so we appreciate the discussion and the study.
If we could, I want to clarify some of the semantics, the definitions, that are thrown around. There's “open sky”, “blue sky”. Is there some synonymous perspective on that? Before it used to be called “open sky agreements” and then it changed to “blue sky”. Does it mean the same thing? Could you maybe expand on and clarify that?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
Blue sky is the name of the policy, so it's the blue sky policy. Some people have said that the agreements negotiated under the policy are blue sky agreements, but what we mean by an open skies agreement, again, is very clear. It is defined in the policy in terms of what those agreements have to have to be considered open skies agreements, but that's the distinction. There's a clear definition of “open skies”. That's still the definition we use. Blue sky refers to the policy.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Okay. We adopted that in November of 2006. I got elected in that year and I've been on the trade committee since. You mentioned in your opening comments that our ATAs cover over 80 countries, but the Library of Parliament handout says that the Canadian Transportation Agency says Canada currently has ATAs with 100 countries.
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
The number 80 that we mentioned is the number of countries covered by the agreements that have been negotiated under the blue sky policy. But of course, before the blue sky policy was announced, we already had a lot of partners. So including the agreements that were negotiated before the blue sky policy was in effect, we now have 112 partners around the world. But we have negotiated agreements that cover over 80 countries under the blue sky policy.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I think that's important, and 44 of those are the open agreements.
Mentioning from British Columbia now, my colleagues Nina and Don are working with the Asia-Pacific gateway and had talks about the challenges of opening our country for foreign carriers to come in. We want the reciprocity. What does the department use as its analytical aspect when deciding whether to negotiate an open skies trade agreement with another country?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
By default, it's going to be an open skies agreement, unless there are certain exceptions, if I can call them that, in the agreement. For instance, if we negotiated with a country where our carriers face very difficult “doing business” conditions, that's a reason why that country would not be a candidate for an open skies agreement under the blue sky policy. For instance, if it's very difficult to bring your profits back into Canada or to convert your earnings in that country into a currency that can be traded, and so on, that could be a reason why we wouldn't do an open skies agreement with that country.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Is the impact on domestic carriers taken into consideration?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
We take a number of considerations into account. For instance, when we develop our negotiating plan for the year, we receive a lot of input: the commercial interests of carriers and airports, international trade considerations, tourism considerations, foreign policy, security, and so on. The interests of our carriers are a variable in the equation, if you will, but we take many other factors into account as well.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I understand the basic framework talks about the economic bilateral relationships between the two countries, but how often are these agreements revisited because there are more details, specifically? I think they probably go into MOUs, as my colleague, Mr. Gill, was referring to, for the taxation. Do you have a revisiting process? When the FTA is being revisited, are these revisited at the same time?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
Not necessarily. It very much depends on the needs of the market at any particular point in time. Opportunities can arise out of the blue as well, which could be a reason why we would want to engage with a particular partner. But typically we want to make sure that we stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, ahead of demand, so that carriers do not face that constraint that would come from the agreement. There's not a predetermined time where we would revisit each agreement. It very much depends on what carriers are doing, the situation that carriers face in the market, and so on. Then if there is an issue, then we try to engage quickly with the other partner.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Okay, thanks.
In your comments you mentioned that of the 50 markets listed in the GMAP, there are only five with which we did not already have or are working on agreements. Which countries are we discussing or considering air trade agreements with?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Air Negotiator, Director General of Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Sorry, which ones of the 50 are we not...?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
No. You said there were five that were not—I guess maybe you can list those five—because you said they're based on size. Which ones are we considering having ATAs with right now?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Air Negotiator, Director General of Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
The five GMAP markets that we're not negotiating with are Brunei, Burma, Madagascar, Kazakhstan, and Zambia. Again, the reason is that they're small markets, essentially, and there doesn't seem to be an interest to exploit the opportunities in those markets.
In terms of the plan for this year, we are looking at approaching a series of countries, mostly to expand our existing agreements. In some cases, we will meet with them. As Marc mentioned previously, often what triggers this process is that an airline, either the foreign carrier or the domestic carrier, comes to us and says they have an interest in expanding their commercial business in that market, and therefore, they've reached the ceiling of the current agreement and would like us to negotiate new services.
The plan for this year is that we're going to—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Randy Hoback
I'm going to have to stop you there unless it's very quick, Mr. Christie. He has exceeded his seven-minute time period.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Air Negotiator, Director General of Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Okay. I'm just going to list some of the countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Cambodia, Haiti, Cuba, Bolivia, Indonesia, Grenada, Japan, Australia, Mexico, and China. That gives you an indication of the countries that we hope to meet with this year.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Christie, you talked a lot about the development of large airports and connectivity. I'd like to draw attention to an important aspect. Connectivity is not necessarily limited by the absence of agreements with other partners. In fact, it is often limited by the classification of airports and the type of services that are offered there.
For example, take the Macaza—Mont-Tremblant International Airport, in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle. American carriers wanted to offer flights between the Newark airport and the Mont-Tremblant airport, or between LaGuardia and Mont-Tremblant. They were not able to do so because of the classification of the airport, as it does not have any permanent customs service, and because of other logistical problems. I don't know if we will one day have the opportunity of developing these secondary airports to ensure connectivity. By the way, it is the same thing in Sherbrooke.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Air Policy, International, Department of Transport
Our agreements do not refer to regional or secondary airports or international hubs. In its other part, the Blue Sky policy indicates that it can be applied in a limited number of Canadian cities, but that it will do the choosing. If it is an “open skies” type of agreement, there is no limit. The foreign carrier may go wherever it wants to.
For an airport to offer international service, it must have certain basic services, such as customs and immigration.
This is a question for the Canada Border Services Agency, since it is responsible for that. I know that a strategy has been put in place to extend these services.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The same problem exists in western Canada. Some of my colleagues have to go through the United States before retracing their steps. It would be simpler if the airport in their region had an intelligent classification. This is a management problem the government should solve. In addition to developing the international program, the government should ensure that airports have the capacity to receive other flights.
