Evidence of meeting #28 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's certainly acceptable from the government's position.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)
(On clause 17)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
This is on page 16 and 17 in your documents, amendment NDP-10....
Mr. Julian.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is simply in reference to strengthening the language in clause 17. Currently the clause would read as follows:
A licensee shall provide 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.
In the case of air service, this would require the obligation that as soon as practicable, the licensee would provide that opportunity to elected officials to do so. We believe the language is stronger and would push that consultation to take place as quickly as possible, or as soon as practicable, rather than leaving it open, as it is in the current wording.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
This creates a precedent, Mr. Chair, but twice in a row I think the NDP amendment is sound, and the government would agree.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh! Oh!
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If that's the case, are there any other comments?
Seeing none, I would ask if the amendment shall carry.
(Amendment agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Regarding the same proposed subsection, to replace section 64 of the Canada Transportation Act, essentially it is now worded as follows:
This section does not apply to a licensee that operates a domestic service that is seasonal in nature for eight months or less in a 12-month period.
It would strengthen the language to restrict this exception to only smaller communities. A community of more than 10,000 people, even with the seasonal service, would see the obligation for the consultation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Actually, the government is not in favour of this amendment for several reasons, Mr. Chair.
The first is that it would dramatically drive up the cost of tracking. Indeed, it's an arbitrary number that doesn't really have relevance to any particular criteria. It's unknown why that number was picked. Why is it not 20,000? Why is it not 30,000? Why is it not 5,000? Indeed, I think it brings about other issues, such as whether this includes peak seasons, or peak season populations in such places as the mountains where there is skiing, or whether it includes the local population.
I would suggest that this is for seasonal operators. This arbitrary number doesn't really accomplish anything. Rather than making it stronger, I would suggest that in fact it weakens it, and indeed drives up costs, without really accomplishing anything, for seasonal operators.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm now comforted, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Jean and I aren't going to agree on everything.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Is the member moving the amendment prepared to go along with the government's proposal, or does he maintain his position?
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In my opinion, this proposal has some merit. It's already complicated enough to obtain services in communities of fewer than 10,000 residents. We shouldn't be making their lives any more difficult than necessary. Therefore, we intend to support the NDP's motion
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'd just like to hear our colleagues from the NDP expand a little bit on some of the reasoning or thinking with respect to the 10,000-person test. There are, increasingly, rural communities that are feeling further and further from mainstream Canadian life--northern communities, northern Ontario communities, Quebec communities, Northwest Territories communities, and so on and so forth--in which access is severely restricted.
I want to understand a bit more what this is trying to address.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What this is trying to address is the issue of not going through the appropriate process for discontinuance when it is a seasonal service. Essentially, what this would do is create an obligation for larger communities, even if it is a seasonal service, to go through that consultation process in the case of a discontinuance or a reduction in service.
Is 10,000 an arbitrary number? It is, because it's a round number. Could it be amended to reflect smaller communities? I believe that's where you're going, Mr. McGuinty, and I would certainly support that. Essentially, what we're saying is that when there's a seasonal service being offered in communities of a certain size, there is an obligation, when there is a reduction or discontinuing of service, to go through a consultative process.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I also am worried, Mr. Chair, if I can be so blunt. I'm worried, as a person from northern Alberta where there's a huge number of small communities, about the 100 or so airlines in Canada setting up a seasonal service to deliver in the first place, if they know they have to go through this consultation process. At the end, if they want to withdraw, it's not financially beneficial to them.
I'm concerned about it from the other direction. Why would they set it up in the first place if they're not going to be able to discontinue it if it's financially not viable for them? The market certainly prevails in these areas. I would suggest that if it's financially beneficial to them, they should continue with service. If it's not, then I think it just adds a lot of cumbersome accounting and would set up an atmosphere where they wouldn't want to set up the service in the first place if there were any question at all.
I'd like to hear from the department as to what they think.