Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Alain Langlois]

We have to see what the intent is. If you don't want the Act to come into effect before 90 days...

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

Non, that's not really the case. Actually, we want things to get moving as quickly as possible.

[Alain Langlois]

Well, if the intent to avoid waiting 90 days, why paint oneself into a corner? In principle, if the amendment is withdrawn, the bill will come into force when it receives Royal Assent. It will then have the force of law. That being the case, this is probably the best choice.

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

That's great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise, are you comfortable with withdrawing the amendment?

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

Yes, that's fine.

(The amendment is withdrawn.)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Bloc amendment BQ-11 has been withdrawn.

Mr. Jean.

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

We should withdraw the clause--or do you want us to vote on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have to vote it down.

The question is on clause 64.

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

But should we not move an amendment saying “on the day on which it receives Royal Assent”?

[Alain Langlois]

Rather than passing that amendment, you can simply decide not to pass the clause. In that case, it will be withdrawn from the bill. That way, the bill will come into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent.

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

So, I am withdrawing my amendment and we are deleting clause 64. That's great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall clause 64 carry?

(Clause 64 negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to move on the stood clauses. We're going to go back to clause 17.

Mr. Julian.

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

Could I suggest that we go back to the clauses that we stood earlier tonight?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think we've got an order, and that will get us to clause 29, which will be impacted by the amendment you were talking about.

So we would be on clause 17, and an amendment proposed by Mr. Julian. It is NDP-11 on page 17. You'll forgive me, if you will. It seems as though it's been a long time, and maybe Mr. Julian could refresh us. I don't even remember where we were when we stood it.

Mr. Jean, I think you were going to respond, or...?

Mr. Julian.

(On clause 17)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I proposed the amendment. The reason we stood this amendment was that there was some concern about not having a process for seasonal air services. That was a matter of real concern. It's also clear that the way the amendment is structured right now, it doesn't necessarily deal with the seasonal nature. The reason we stood aside that clause was to find wording that would work, allowing those communities to have a process when seasonal service is being terminated.

I've certainly consulted my colleagues who represent parts of northern Canada, and they said very clearly there needs to be a process for seasonal air services in many communities in the country. We can't simply allow the service to be terminated without that process.

So that's what we were left with.

I don't suggest that the NDP amendment should be passed as it is. It's certainly worth looking to my colleagues to see if we can amend it in such a way that it allows those seasonal services. Perhaps Mr. Jean has something that he's going to pull out of his hat that might be acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to be clear. We discussed this for some time, and the department has indicated to me that they have consulted with some municipalities. As well, they have provided to me en français and in English some information that could provide assistance, and I would like to provide that to the committee, if I might.

The first thing to take note of is the objective of this clause, which this government is trying to address, and that is to become efficient. In fact, it's not only for the government to become efficient, but for there to be the ability for small Canadian carriers that sometimes have one or two planes, or that are a mom-and-pop shop, to get rid of the unproductive workload. From what I've seen, there seems to be a lot of unproductive workload.

Many of these carriers for seasonal operators--and I know this from first-hand experience--serve a lodge, a camp, or a mine site, and in many cases they are owned by the mine or the lodge or the fishing lodges in the north that I attend, and they have problems with this. In fact, it seems very unproductive. Once you see the handout, I think you will agree with that. I think the department could tell us. They informed me that the municipalities they contacted have no concerns with seasonal operators, and indeed would think, quite frankly, that it's a waste of time to be consulted on that. So I leave it to the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Borges.

[Helena Borges]

As the table that's going around will demonstrate, the department contacted a couple of municipal entities to ask them whether they had issues and needed to be advised of this. I think the answer we received was that they value the seasonal services, but they are what they are--seasonal services. They are not providing transportation on a scheduled basis for the people in the community. They're a special-purpose operation, usually serving a lodge or a hunting or fishing area, and that is the specific purpose of the operation.

After that season is done, then they take their planes and go elsewhere--south, wherever--and they come back next season. To make them go through the process of advising and putting the notice out is going to put a lot of them out of business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I'd like to come back to the question of insurance. I'm interested not only in security, but in the possibility of someone suing a person who uses one of these planes.

You say that as soon as service is discontinued, the operator no longer has any insurance, or vice versa. How does it actually work?

I had the impression that when an operator sends you a notice of discontinuance, you knew that he no longer had insurance. We should at least be able to answer people who call Transport Canada to ask whether the company [Inaudible--Editor]. So, how does it work?

Does this mean that a company can discontinue service at any time and that you won't know whether it has insurance or not? Could it leave at any time, so that someone involved in an accident might have no recourse whatsoever? That's what I'm concerned about.

[Alain Langlois]

The matter of insurance is connected to the issuance of a certificate of competency. Any person operating an air transportation company in Canada has to obtain a certificate of competency from the Canadian Transportation Agency.

One of the conditions that has to be met before a certificate of competency can be issued is that the operator has to have the required liability insurance. Now if there is no insurance, the Agency has to suspend or cancel the licence. That is an obligation on its part, whether the service is being operated or not.

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

When an operator decides to discontinue his operations, the first thing he does in order to save money is to call his insurance company to tell them he doesn't want insurance anymore.

Who then tells Transport Canada? Does the insurance company call Transport Canada to say this operator no longer has insurance, or is it the operator who does that?