Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

In northern Alberta, where I represent 15 or 17 rural communities of under 10,000 people, they would indeed be bound by this. Indeed, they might not even be prepared to service the communities I represent because of this new criterion. In fact, they might take a step back because of the financially onerous nature of it and not service places like Lake Athabasca for the fishing camps and things like that, because as soon as they want to withdraw that service because the community is under 10,000, it would indeed impede their ability to operate. Is it fair to say that?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

It would create a disequilibrium, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Just so that I understand clearly, what are the current requirements of section 64, as worded?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Do you mean the requirements as stipulated in the existing act?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Under the current legislation, if a business wishes to suspend its operations because of the cyclical or seasonal nature of the service, two things must be taken into consideration.

I'll answer in English.

They can allow their insurance to lapse. It's a cheap way of doing things. If they do not have valid insurance, they cannot have a valid licence and they cannot operate. Some cyclical operators do that. It's easy. Others, for whatever reason, choose to keep their insurance up to date. Even if they have a seasonal operation, they pay insurance at whatever rate for the entire year, but they don't wish to have their licence necessarily operational. They therefore seek an exemption from the agency in terms of offering services to these communities. They don't wish to operate on a year-round, continuous basis, and they seek a discontinuation of their licence. The agency normally has to consider the merits of that proposal. So there is both the application process by the seasonal operator and there is the consideration of the agency of whether to accept it or not.

What we're proposing is that those seasonal operators would no longer be subject to that process. They would be carved out and exempted. They could operate a seasonal operation, on a seasonal basis, as long as they have a valid licence, without having to seek an exemption from the agency to terminate that operation on a seasonal basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is the impetus for this change coming from the seasonal carriers?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

It's coming from both seasonal carriers and the agency, both of whom see it as a benefit.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What about the communities that might be affected by this?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

There is no indication—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, but the point I was trying to make earlier in regard to Mr. Julian's 10,000-person cut-off is based on my own personal experience. I spent three years in and out of the Northwest Territories, travelling to places where there are 700 people or 500 people or 1,200 people. The question of access by air, seasonal or otherwise, is a very important question.

What do they say about this? What has the agency or the department done to talk to the dozens of communities across this country that don't live within a four-hour driving proximity or bus proximity of a major airport? How do they get around? How do they get their goods?

You mentioned earlier that there's a positive working relationship with these carriers, these seasonal carriers, anyway with these communities. If that's the case, why wouldn't those carriers not agree with this kind of proposed amendment?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I think the carriers are very supportive of the amendment the government is bringing forward.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm talking about Mr. Julian's amendment.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

In terms of putting a population criterion on it, the amendment introduces an element that currently does not exist in the licensing process. It means that if the agency were called upon to exercise this parameter, this exemption process, on a population basis, it would impose an additional workload on the agency to actually determine where a specific licence fits. It's information that currently is not tagged as part of the licensing process. There are some 800 to 1,000 small carriers. For all of those, it would have to look at whether or not they now serve a particular community of a particular size if that measure were brought in. That would be a very substantial inefficiency for the agency, and a new role that would have cost implications.

In terms of your question on how the communities see it, in some sense it's neutral to the communities. What the communities see is the seasonal operator who goes in and offers a seasonal service for as long as the season creates a market opportunity. To them, it really is invisible in regard to the engagement between the carrier and the agency, in terms of the licensing requirements and the licensing process.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have no doubt that this is going to cost more money. I have no doubt that this is going to take more work on behalf of the agency. None at all. But I think the import of this is a question of equity. I'm trying to get to a question of equity as a Canadian citizen if you have standards that don't apply equally across the board at a time when rural Canada is hemorrhaging to death and hollowing out.

If you were to take five community leaders from 500-person communities or 2,000-person communities, many of which we represent—particularly those of us who have catchment areas in rural areas—and put this question to them, what do you think they might say about this particular amendment put forward by Mr. Julian, about the need for consultation to be caught in this bill? They have to sit down with affected communities before either exempting themselves, which is the process today, either by letting their insurance lapse.... I understand the technique. But what I'm trying to get to is whether we are wrong in assuming, or whether I'm wrong in assuming, that affected communities here, at a time when the gap between urban and rural Canada is large.... We all live it. Am I missing something here?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Small carriers that serve communities, small or large, all year round are not exempted from the requirements for the 120-day service. What we are proposing is for those carriers that provide a seasonal service to a community of any size. It could be a community of 10,000, it could be a community of 20,000, or it could be a community of 50,000. All of these, I think we would say, are small communities for whom the business, whether it's cyclical or temporary, is a very important economic contributor.

Having said that, we've said that because of the particular requirements of the seasonal operation industry, which is cyclical, and because of the fact that under the way in which the legislation is drafted at the present time, seasonal operators have to seek an exemption from the agency in order to terminate their licences, that introduces a certain inefficiency. It's something they would do anyway. It's something they do because the service they provide is a seasonal service. It is not a year-round service. That's the reason why they're seeking the exemption.

For services that are year-round to small communities, the advance notice will continue to be there. I think this measure, by carving out the seasonal element, does in fact take a very unbiased approach to all of the small communities that benefit from seasonal activity, not just the very few under a certain population threshold that might benefit from seasonal activity. This is a more generic and broader-based benefit, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So then, if I understand what you're saying, the proposed new subsection (3.1) in the bill provides for an exemption, as compared to the current requirement under section 64. Therefore, under the proposed amendment,. only small communities will be exempted, as stipulated in section 64.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The smallest communities . . .

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So then, if this amendment is adopted, it will be to the detriment of small communities. If the exemption is removed, that would mean section 64 applies only to other communities.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Exactly.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Then this amendment would have an adverse effect on small communities.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Even if the others . . .