Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

One can even question whether, in the final analysis, subsection (3.1) eases a requirement that possibly we could recommend be eliminated?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

If it wasn't for this exemption.

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

Rather than impose restrictions.

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

I understand.

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

However, that is not the motion currently on the table.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Precisely. I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

At the risk of adding to the confusion, it occurs to me that there's a requirement in terms of a cessation of service that captured seasonal operations that maybe weren't intended to be captured because they're coming back; they're just not operating in a period of time. Therefore, to be relieved of the obligations that would otherwise apply, they would have to seek an exemption. Because that is an obligation or that is an onerous, inefficient system, we don't have to seek it because they are seasonally exempted automatically.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

As proposed under the bill.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

As against having to seek an exemption from....

So in terms of the obligation on the carrier, I don't agree necessarily with Mr. Carrier. I think what's happening is there is an effort being made to relieve them of being caught in a regulation that is deemed necessary to deal with ceasing a service. So I'm not sure how you split this.

I agree with Mr. Julian on this point. I don't believe it is invisible to the communities, because, for instance, for whatever the reason that a permanent carrier would be asked to explain themselves, there may be a need to ask a seasonal carrier to explain themselves as well.

It's not all rural and remote. The carrier that is delivering Japanese tourists to Charlottetown...it's not a rural or remote community; it's a seasonal service. It's the tourist season, but it's a seasonal service. And the community of Charlottetown may have questions of the carrier as to why they picked the peak period in the shoulder season. I think that's a legitimate question. They no longer will have to explain themselves to anybody, because before they would have had to seek an exception and now they don't.

So it's a legitimate question as to whether or not the carrier should be relieved of having to explain themselves to the community in many instances. We've gone from perhaps too much requirement on the seasonal carrier to too little. Is that correct?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

So absent of an alternative to Mr. Julian's amendment, I'd have to support Mr. Julian, although I don't necessarily like the population piece.

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

Neither do I.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I'm of the same sense as Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Carrier. The more we're having this discussion, the more I'm realizing that I don't think the amendment actually justly covers the impact on these communities. We're allowing communities to basically see a termination of their seasonal service without any recourse, and I think there's a broad concern over that on this side of the table. I don't think the amendment stipulating 10,000 really deals with that because it means many smaller communities can see a termination of seasonal service without the appropriate consultation.

Might I suggest, Mr. Chair, that we stand this clause and come back to it at next Tuesday's meeting. In the meantime, I think we could have some discussion about the best way to deal with the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have a couple more people requesting to speak, and then I think I'll refer back to that.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the members of this committee for their deep concern for rural communities, which I represent. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Scott is saying, but I do have a serious problem when we start putting arbitrary numbers on this, like 10,000 people. I really think that's a major issue.

One of the things I would like to ask of the department is whether we know how many exemptions have been given per year and how many interventions by communities have been requested.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Because the agency does not issue licences on the basis of seasonality or on the basis of community or carrier size, there are no statistics that indicate exactly how many would be of a seasonal nature.

The agency has indicated that it sees some 200 suspensions requested per year. Some of these may be seasonal in nature and some may not be.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

And how many communities have expressed this per year? Are we getting any numbers or any feedback?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I don't know how many communities benefit from seasonal air operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Laframboise.

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

I would tend to agree more with Mr. Julian. I would advise the government and Mr. Jean to be very careful, for safety reasons. I have safety concerns about licensees requesting that their licence be suspended for a certain period of time. I'd like the government to consider this, because I'm not sure that your amendment . . . However, I can see how this might save you some time, from an administrative standpoint.

The problem, for me and for the public, is knowing whether it's important, for security considerations, to know which companies are suspended their operations and thus have no insurance. I think that at this point in time, it might be better for us to continue monitoring these individuals and require them to notify us when service is suspended, so that we know which companies are insured, in case of an accident occurs and the carrier continues to operate.

Otherwise, it means that these persons can at any time suspend their operations and cancel their insurance, and no one would know when or how this came about. I'd like us to take a closer look at this.

Perhaps you can return for our next meeting. I can understand how this would mean less work and how it would be easier for everyone. But, would it be safer? You can't convince me of that. I'd like the government to study this issue, because I'm convinced that safety is important to the Conservative government. I'm simply wondering if it's not important for us to monitor these individuals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, my difficulty with this.... I think I have a pretty good handle on seasonal service in the north, in rural communities. I have some communities that have absolutely about three weeks of service by road, and the only way they can get their goods is by plane. For instance, Fort Chipewyan has seasonal operations, and a lot of people go in there to fish, but it's a very difficult time to fish in the middle of winter when there are four feet of ice on the lake.

I think what it's going to do, if this amendment passes that Mr. Julian has put forward, is it's going to restrict operators from actually trying out seasonal operations in the north. What I'm curious about, since the main concern seems to be rural communities and their expression of dissatisfaction with the cut-off of seasonal air service, is whether the department can tell us how many communities have actually expressed, over the last five years, concerns about seasonal operators discontinuing the service to them.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I'm not aware of any communities that have expressed concerns in that regard.