Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck, Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport]

Most operators that would use this service would use it on a cyclical basis. That's the whole nature of seasonality. Again, if we are going to treat those operators whose business is of a cyclical nature in the same way as we would treat an ongoing venture, it drives up their costs. As we heard from the government representative, it increases their disincentive, I guess, to operate.

In terms of the reduced burden that is being proposed through this carve-out for seasonal operations, it is with respect to requests for exemption. Those operators normally would approach the agency to seek an exemption rather than going through the consultation process. Because of the cyclical nature of the business, it's not seen as necessary in most cases. So it is the exemption process that is going to be carved out for seasonal operators.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have just a couple of questions, again to Mr. Julian.

We had numerous witnesses here, and I don't believe I missed any meetings at which witnesses appeared. Is there something the witnesses said that would have driven you to propose this amendment? I didn't hear it. Quite aside from the arbitrary nature of the 10,000 number, I didn't hear any of the witnesses raise the concern that you've raised.

Secondly, one of the purposes of revisiting this legislation is to simplify and presumably also to reduce the cost burden, not only for industry, but also for government. If you could answer that, I'd also appreciate a follow-up from staff as to whether they would expect this would drive up costs for government, because we're introducing a whole new element of supervision and monitoring here. I'm concerned it's going to be counterproductive to what we're actually trying to do with this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Julian--and staff.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite frankly, we didn't have northern communities and remote communities represented here, so I think it would be a question that this committee could have put. I think we had very extensive consultations, but we didn't consult northern and remote communities to the same extent. So it's fair to say that if we brought those communities here, I think the concerns would be very valid. As a result of that, we thought of tabling this amendment in order to provide some sort of structure when there is reduction or discontinuation of services, even in a seasonal context. So it's important to provide some mechanism.

I don't see this as a huge cost component. It simply says providing:

an opportunity for elected officials of the municipal or local government of the community...to meet and discuss with the licensee the impact of the proposed discontinuance or reduction.

We're not talking about a huge royal commission. We're talking about meeting with local officials, and maybe finding solutions to that discontinuance or reduction that would allow that community to continue the service in some way, even in the off season.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The entire nature of a seasonal business is just that. I think communities welcome, benefit, and appreciate that business. I think there's generally a very good rapport between seasonal business operators and the community because of the interdependence of their activities.

That said, in terms of cost considerations, the agency currently issues licences on the basis of scope of operation. And that's for all of Canada. They do not distinguish whether an operator is only travelling a very short distance between two points or long distances between two points. When we introduce a component, as is proposed here, that has a population measure, it introduces a new element. That isn't something the agency tracks. That isn't currently a part of what's tagged as part of issuing the licence. Therefore, that requirement imposes an additional tagging requirement, tracking requirement, and ensuring compliance.

It also introduces a certain amount of ambiguity for the seasonal operators, who may question whether in fact they fit within the 10,000 criteria. To be on the safe side, they may choose to go through the painful process of seeking an exemption nevertheless. It introduces ambiguity. And with that ambiguity, there's additional cost. There's a cost to the agency, but there's also a cost to the operator.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

What you're actually saying is there are two methods the operator could proceed by. They could seek an exemption, or if we adopt this amendment they could use the components of the act. We are giving two alternatives to that operator.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The clause we're looking at pertains to an exemption from the normal notice proceedings for seasonal operators. Rather than approaching the community and giving 120 days' notice, normally, a seasonal operator would approach the agency and seek an exemption from that requirement on the basis of being a cyclical business. The agency would then assess the validity and the merits of that. It generally allows that sort of an exemption from the 120-day requirement.

In many cases for seasonal operators, their insurance lapses. They choose not to maintain their insurance obligation, in which case they basically cease doing business; they no longer have a valid licence. Seasonal operators have a very distinct kind of functioning. This particular clause simply ensures that if they choose to maintain their insurance, and therefore a valid licence, they can go to the agency and seek an exemption if they aren't going to be continuing operations on a seasonal basis.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You're referring to seeking an exemption. The way the clause is currently worded, it simply does not apply.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The 120 days would not apply to the seasonal operators. They would no longer have to seek an exemption, as they currently do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You understand the point I'm making.

Essentially what you're saying is that we already have provisions for this within the existing act. In a sense, reinforcing the reality that having a clause that has a threshold would not make a difference to the way Transport Canada currently acts.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

No, in fact, in the existing legislation, there is no exemption for seasonal operators. Seasonal operators are bound by the obligation. If they choose to maintain their insurance, and therefore have a valid licence, but want to discontinue operations, under the existing legislation they have to approach the agency and seek an exemption for the cyclical period during which they're not operating.

The proposed bill would eliminate that requirement, exempt them, and carve out seasonal operators.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The amendment would eliminate that current requirement for communities of less than 10,000.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

That is what you have proposed. This is broader.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

My point being that we're actually providing a shift from the way things are currently done for smaller communities.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

We are proposing that it be done for all seasonal operators, regardless of the size of community to which they offer seasonal services.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Why not fifteen? Why not five? There's no evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm curious about the cost it would take to operate something like this. I know the department probably doesn't have any good figures.

I think Mr. Julian is proposing to keep the legislation as it is, in essence, because there are no communities, or very few in my mind, that are over 10,000 and have seasonal operators.

Am I correct in that assumption?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I don't know how many communities there are with—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But it would be fair to assume there are not very many that would fall within that criterion. In essence, then, what it would do is neutralize the effect of what the department has suggested would be a good change for the seasonal operators. Indeed the seasonal operation is eight out of twelve months as a minimum, so they would be real, true seasonal operators.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Correct.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Are most of these seasonal operators small as far as capital equipment and costs such as that are concerned? Are these large companies that we're talking about ones that can afford huge costs?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Seasonal operators would be small operators for the most part. They would include fishing camps, hunting lodges, and people who tend to work on a cyclical, seasonal basis.