Transport Committee on June 16th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 26.

The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of Nav Canada's airport traffic services.

Joining us today from Nav Canada are Mr. John Crichton, president and chief executive officer; Rudy Kellar, vice-president of operations; and Larry Lachance, assistant vice-president for operational support, operations.

Welcome. I presume you have an opening statement, and then we'll move to committee questions.

Please begin.

[John Crichton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, NAV CANADA]

Bon après-midi, monsieur le président, mesdames et messieurs les députés. Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me back to speak to the committee.

Accompanying me again this time is Rudy Kellar, Nav Canada's vice-president of operations, and Larry Lachance, the assistant vice-president, operational support.

In March, when I last appeared before the committee, we discussed the airport traffic services review that Nav Canada had initiated to examine service requirements at a number of airports. We are now undertaking extensive consultation with customers, employees, and community and other stakeholders on those proposed changes. These consultations will include the federal members of Parliament in whose ridings the airports are located. However, I understand from the clerk that the committee wishes to discuss Mirabel airport in particular today.

As you know, Mirabel airport has undergone a significant evolution in the past decade. Airport traffic has fallen by more than 40% since 2000, and passenger service ceased altogether in 2004. The airport operator has closed one of the two runways and is in discussions with a private consortium for the redevelopment of the terminal building into a theme park. Today the airport is primarily used by cargo operators, the aerospace manufacturing industry, and general aviation, including flight training.

As the committee is aware from our previous discussions, we review our levels of service regularly. It is good business practice and an integral part of our mandate that requires us to apply our level of service policy in a consistent manner.

Given the significant change in airport operations at Mirabel, we initiated an aeronautical study in July 2006 to examine our levels of service at that airport. Consultation and analysis were undertaken, and a completed aeronautical study was submitted to Transport Canada in May 2007.

The study recommended that the 24-hour airport control tower be replaced with a 24-hour flight service station. Transport Canada reviewed the study and indicated its concurrence in November 2007. Approximately one year later, on November 20, 2008, the service change was implemented.

Our services at Mirabel are in accordance with our published level of service policy, which we discussed in March. Among other things, the policy states that airport control towers are generally required when the sustained activity at an airport is above 60,000 movements annually. Flight service stations are generally required when an airport has more than 20,000 movements annually, of which about 7,500 are scheduled air carrier movements.

I have appended at the end of my printed remarks several graphs showing annual movements at the Mirabel airport in each year since 2000, hourly average movements, and 2008 movements plotted against our level of service assessment guidelines. At approximately 26,000 annual movements, traffic demand at Mirabel is appropriately served by a flight service station.

Flight service specialists are highly trained aviation professionals who provide safe and efficient operations at 58 airports in Canada, including some with complex traffic mixes and much greater traffic volumes.

You will have heard that some companies have expressed concern about the absence of a control tower at the airport. We have met with the companies in question twice in the past few weeks and will be meeting with them again later this week to discuss their issues and ways to mitigate them. One possible solution is for the companies requesting the control service to agree to pay for it. We estimate the cost at about $500,000 per year.

I can assure the committee that I fully recognize the importance of the aerospace manufacturing activity that occurs at Mirabel airport, and that our service assessment considered the uniqueness of Mirabel operations, where significant test flights originate and terminate.

Our flight service specialists provide excellent service to the aviation community. Their duties are comprehensive, and their track record in safety and service is exemplary. Rest assured that we are prepared to listen to and work closely with the customers and stakeholders involved to address the concerns that have recently been expressed.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we'd be happy to take the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Crichton for his presentation.

Mr. Crichton, I want to congratulate you for what I take to be a certain open-mindedness with regard to the Mirabel file. I am from Montreal and I would like to ask you some questions that would help us to understand the situation in Mirabel in a wider context. For example, the situation at the Sudbury airport, Ontario, is about the same as in Mirabel, in that the control tower in Sudbury was replaced by an FSS. Am I right?

[John Crichton]

Yes, that's correct.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I have a list of eight other airports in Canada: Gander, Prince George, Regina, Sault Ste. Marie, Saint John's Newfoundland, Saint-Jean in Québec, Whitehorse and Windsor. Could you please tell me what is the annual volume of air traffic in these airports?

[John Crichton]

We can get that information for you. We don't have it with us, but we can supply that to the committee.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I understand very well that you do not have those documents within arms' reach, however, could you tell me if any of the airports among the eight that I just listed receive less than 60,000 landings per year?

[John Crichton]

That have control towers?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Could you tell me if some of the airports among the ones I listed receive less than 60,000 landings per year?

[John Crichton]

I believe there may be a couple.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Mr. Crichton to send the committee some information on the number of landings at these airports on a yearly basis. I could provide the list of airports at some other time.

I would also like to know whether Mr. Crichton is intending to replace control towers with FSS in one or more of the airports that I just mentioned.

[John Crichton]

Let me get back to you. We're not sure that there are, but I would draw the committee's attention to the last page in our handout. Just because an airport has fewer than 60,000 movements doesn't automatically mean that it loses the tower service. We also look at other factors.

One of the factors is the number of scheduled movements, as well as whether it has scheduled passenger operations, the complexity of the airspace, and the airport surface itself. A variety of different factors can enter into it. In terms of the complexity of the surrounding airspace, I believe the member mentioned Windsor, Ontario. One of the unique situations we have to deal with there is the proximity to Detroit and the very high-density terminal airspace in Detroit. Some of the Canadian airspace is actually controlled from Detroit.

There are a variety of factors. It's not a simple arithmetical calculation; there are a whole host of other issues, but we will get you all the specific information.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

This gives me an opportunity to come back to another element, and I am glad that you could tell me that. In fact, you study these airports individually. You note the variables and you make a decision that applies to a specific airport, and not to all of them. Am I right, Mr. Crichton?

[John Crichton]

We do an aeronautical study, and that is a study that's all about safety. It's a hazard and risk analysis. It is very open and consultative with all of the stakeholders, including the operators, and it's primarily directed at safety.

Once we've done that, if that study indicates that the change would not pose any safety risk, it's then provided to the safety regulator, Transport Canada. Transport Canada then do their own analysis on it, and if they're satisfied as well that it doesn't pose a safety risk, they allow us to make the change, and that's what happened in the case of Mirabel.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Since you mention safety, Mr. Crichton, I would like to bring in another factor, which is precisely the landing of crafts from the aerospace industry in Quebec.

You certainly know that the aerospace industry in Quebec is very important not only for Quebec but for Canada as a whole. This industry specifically uses the Mirabel landing strips to test its crafts. Therefore, it is a very important element for that industry. The safety of individuals and of crafts is an important issue. Thus, when the control tower is changed for an FSS, it seems to me that the safety of aircraft and especially of individuals is compromised.

I would like you to review the situation at the Mirabel airport from the point of view of safety for individuals and aircraft—I would even dare say the safety of the aerospace industry in Canada. To my knowledge the landing strip at Mirabel is the only one in Canada that is capable of receiving this type of craft.

Could you please comment on this?

[John Crichton]

We are reviewing any and all specific concerns. I think you're referring to Bombardier, which is the main manufacturer at the site, and Bell Helicopter.

In fact, before we changed to a flight service station, at the request of Bell Helicopter we did change some airspace to make it more suitable for them. In the case of Bombardier, we opened up another whole block of airspace northeast of Montreal for test flights, in addition to the one we already had for them northwest of Montreal. We are continuing that dialogue.

For the information of the committee, at this point we have found no difference from a safety point of view between the operators receiving a control service and their receiving an advisory service from the same tower by the flight service specialist.

I would add that it's important to remember that the main purpose of a control service is to prevent aircraft from hitting each other. It's not a service that in any way looks after the physical airport itself. It is much more related to keeping airplanes apart, keeping them from hitting each other, and keeping them from hitting vehicles on the ground on the runway. The flight service system works extremely well and has, as I say, an exemplary record for doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Crichton, you put a figure of $500,000 on this problem. There is no longer any service at Mirabel because you wanted to save $500,000. However, I am concerned with the development of the aerospace industry. Everyone is talking about the situation in Montreal. Various figures are quoted, but they say that Montreal is second or third in the world, after Toulouse and Seattle. These two cities have airports with control towers 24 hours a day. And Mirabel has no control tower, to save $500,000!

You said that you had two meetings. Thus, let me share with you some comments that were made after those two meetings. The local newspaper is following this story, and states that a representative of Bell Helicopter declared, following the meetings, that some people did not understand the importance of the safety challenge.

Moreover, I spoke with representatives of the industry. These people do not want me to give their names; they seem to be afraid of you. Nonetheless, they say that it was a non-starter and that the meetings did not yield anything at all because, very simply, you did not want to spend $500,000. That is the problem.

We have safety problems. People from the aerospace industry tell us that they are conducting trials. There are some CF-18s. Pratt and Whitney is testing its motors, that is where they have their tests stand. There are also Bombardier and Bell Helicopter. All those people sign a letter, and all you have to say is that it is not important. You certainly know that two potentially unfortunate events occurred. They were close to being accidents. Now you tell us that it is not up to you to control these things, but those people know how things work. If they tell us that a control tower could have helped to avoid such incidents, I think that we should, at the very least, believe them, Mr. Crichton.

You said that you would hold a meeting this week. I wonder what for. Will you be telling them the same thing? Will you tell them that you did a study and there is absolutely nothing to be done?

[John Crichton]

I need to answer a couple of things that you've raised there.

To your last point, we will be meeting with them in an ongoing effort to understand what their specific requirements are, how they may create a safety risk and, if that is a legitimate safety risk, what we can do about it.

Having said that, and because the issue of Seattle Boeing Field and Toulouse having control towers was raised, I should tell you that you'll see from the information before you that Seattle Boeing Field has 300,000 movements a year and Toulouse has 94,000 movements a year. Under those circumstances, they would certainly have control towers in Canada if they had movements like that as well.

The issue of the $500,000 goes back to the basic equity of how we work and the requirement for us to apply our level of service policy. It's a legal requirement to apply it in a consistent fashion. Right now the cost of putting a tower back in Mirabel would in fact end up being borne and paid for by people who do not serve Mirabel. That is the basic fact. In Canada we have a national policy of assessing terminal charges, and that's for good reason: if we didn't, we would end up with the major centres--the Montreals, the Torontos, the Vancouvers--having very low costs assessed to the operators of the airplanes, while the people in the smaller centres--the Kelownas, the Fort McMurrays, the Val d'Ors--would be paying amounts that could be 10 or 20 times as much. For that reason, we have a national policy of assessing the terminal charges, which means we are making everybody pay for every unnecessary dollar that we spend in an airport.

It's also why I come back to one possible solution in this issue. Since it is a very specific group of companies that is asking for the return of the control service, there's a simple way to do it. If they will pay for it--and I don't think it's a lot of money for companies of that size--then we can avoid all that problem. We'd be more than happy to put it back, but we do have a legal obligation not to discriminate in terms of the application of our level of service policies, and it's for good reasons.

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

Mr. Crichton, you are telling us that you will be penalizing our world-class aerospace industry providers. You will make them pay fees that their competitors everywhere in the world do not have to pay. All this because you want to save some money. I find it very difficult to accept this kind of situation.

I will not come back to the questions that were put to you. Some Canadian airports have control towers although the air traffic is less heavy than at Mirabel. To my knowledge, Mirabel is still an international airport. You want to take advantages away from the aerospace industry, but I think that if you choose to do that, it is because you are following orders from the government. Otherwise, we'll have to sit down and discuss the matter. Your way of going about it simply consists in requiring our aerospace industry to pay extra fees.

Is this what you want?

[John Crichton]

Mr. Laframboise, Nav Canada's charges are in the lowest 10% among any countries in the world. They are considerably lower than the charges people are paying at Toulouse and considerably lower than the charges that people are paying through various taxes in the U.S.—even if our charges were being paid.

Right now, the fact of the matter is that test flights are exempt from our charges. Last year at Mirabel, Bombardier and Bell Helicopter benefited to the tune of well over $200,000 in flights that were exempt from charges and for which we received nothing, and for which the rest of the aviation industry had to pay, even though they don't go anywhere near Mirabel.

So it's not quite that simple. There is a real issue here, I think, if we talk about the cost of being fair to everyone, including other people who are flying in Quebec.

In its consultative form, what we are doing with those customers now is to try to understand what their safety issues are. At this point, we simply have not been able to agree that there is a safety issue. We're going to have another meeting; maybe there will be other information brought forward.

At the end of the day, it is a decision that the safety regulator makes as well. It's not just Nav Canada saying that there is not a safety issue at this point. Neither has the regulator found a safety issue. We understand the industry's concern, but we're trying to find a way to do this that is fair to everybody, including the people who have to pay and yet never go anywhere near Mirabel. That's an issue as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you again in front of the committee, Mr. Crichton.

What is the cost of the flight service station, then, at Mirabel, if we go with that rather than the control tower? What's the difference between the two costs?

[John Crichton]

It's $500,000.