Transport Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[John Crichton]

Yes. These analyses involve meetings on site with any stakeholders who want to provide input. They're arranged in advance and that will happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses here.

I come from a remote region of Canada as well, the Northwest Territories, where of course aviation service is very important to us. With the difficulty with the changing climate we have in the north, we see that weather conditions are proving to be even more of a problem with aviation than they have in the past. If you examine the incidence reports, you'll see that weather-related incidents are probably one of the highest problems you have at the airports.

Nav Canada issued the following directions to their site managers in terms of reduced and low visibility operations. The responsible airport authority managers are cautioned not to enter into any agreement that places responsibility on ATS for keeping airport authority informed of these changing conditions.

Transport Canada has implemented requirements that airports implement reduced visibility operations when visibility is below half a mile. The only source of this information in many cases at all airports in the Northwest Territories and at most airports in Canada is from Nav Canada equipment and personnel. Notification is essential. You receive regular weather observations as part of your normal responsibilities. You receive reports from pilots and note whenever the visibility is below half a mile and a quarter of a mile. So you're not providing this information to the local people.

You have suggested that perhaps you can provide this through phone calls to local offices. Respectfully, many northern airports don't have personnel working at the office 24 hours a day.

So why are you refusing to notify the airport operators of this critical information, which you gather as part of your normal responsibilities and which of course we must pay for?

[Larry Lachance, Assistant Vice-President, Operational Support, Operations, Nav Canada]

If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, we issued some directives to our units not too long ago. The reason these directives were issued to our units was that there was a potential liability aspect. Under the airport certificate it is the airport's authority and responsibility to issue the conditions under which low visibility operations procedures or reduced visibility operations procedures have to take place.

That being said, we're currently into some discussions with the Canadian Airports Council authority as to the sharing of the information. We have already, at most of our major airports, a system in place where we do share the information. And the information the airports are seeking is what we refer to as runway visual range, RVR, information. Basically where the RVR information is available, we currently have established with the CAC representative a process where the airport authority will call the Nav Canada facilities in order to get the information.

What you have to keep in mind is that given the operation we're in on a daily basis, it's pretty difficult, on occasion, to be in a position to relay that information on a continuous basis. So we have a mechanism in place right now that is being looked at where the information will be provided to the airport authority.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It seems, then, that your primary concern is your liability rather than the safety of the operators. I just want to go on to say that in some ways Nav Canada is responding to a business model incentive to serve big communities, not small communities. The problem is that Nav Canada makes its money based on weight and frequency of flights. When you analyze airports and the conditions they fly in and the requirements for safety for the people who are flying in them, you'll have to take into account many other factors.

We have airports that, because of their location, because of their weather conditions, are hazardous to fly into many times. We've had significant and serious accidents in the Northwest Territories because of the availability of weather information on a timely basis. This is one of the biggest problems we have.

Right now this government is investing $300 million for airport security. I'd like to see what they're putting into improving the ability of our pilots to understand what the weather is at the airports, which is really killing people, which is really causing significant problems in small airports right across this country.

How do you feel about that? How do you feel about your ability to provide the proper weather services to the pilots so that they can deal with the conditions at these small airports?

[John Crichton]

Well, Mr. Bevington, let me reassure you. First, I went north in 1972 and spent 25 years north of 60, building what is today the biggest airline there. I guess I'm as familiar with the difficulty with small airports in the Arctic as anybody is.

Since Nav Canada took over, I'm not aware of any accident in the north or elsewhere that was caused by our failure to live up to our obligations with respect to providing weather information.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, that's not really the question I had. It's not about your obligations, but the ability to provide adequate weather information for pilots. You have a business model that limits your liability. I'm not really concerned about whether you're responsible. I'm concerned about the planes that get caught up in bad weather and the pilots don't get adequate reporting on the way into those runways.

I'd just like to mention that I grew up on northern airports. My father was an airport manager. I understand the conditions of small airports very well. I know the deterioration in the service that's gone on since we've gone to these automated weather systems. We've gone to other forms that are just simply not adequate.

[John Crichton]

I'm simply telling you, number one, that we're very sensitive to the issue you raise. Not simply because it's a corporate policy are we sensitive, but some of the senior management of the company in fact live there and are very familiar with it. We go to great lengths to make sure we live up to that requirement to provide the weather to the aviation community, and we are doing that and we will continue to do that.

With respect to the specific issue you raised, I'm not totally familiar with that. I am making a commitment here and now to get back to you on that. I think there's more to what you raise than it appears at first blush. I will get all the facts and I will respond to the committee and to you on what the facts of the matter are. We are investing very significant sums of money in the north on our service. We continue to do that. In fact, the north receives levels of service in this country that are unheard of in other countries. That's an undertaking we gladly accepted when we took over, and we will live up to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask that if there is correspondence you do it through the chair and I'll see that it gets distributed.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. Lemay's line of questioning, and since Mr. Laframboise actually asked for the meeting today with Nav Canada, the government would like to give them an opportunity to have our additional seven minutes, if that's all right with the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Sure.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Brian, that was nice of you.

We are aware of the pressure you are under. You represent a private company. In your statement, you said that your company has to be viable. You don't receive any government funding. Everyone is aware of the state of the industry today. Airline company representatives have told me that NAV Canada's rates cannot go up. However, you cannot neglect the regions just because you do not want to increase rates, which is understandable. Mr. Lemay earlier told you about the situation in Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or. I looked at the analysis you conducted for Chibougamau, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Blanc-Sablon and Natashquan. You are on the verge of making important changes. These communities—namely Nastahquan, Blanc-Sablon, Havre-Saint-Pierre and others—are isolated, and for them, some services, such as medevac flights, are essential services.

Can you guarantee that medevac flights will always be able to land at the airports in Chibougamau, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Blanc-Sablon and Natashquan despite any changes in the quality of the service? Can you guarantee this?

[John Crichton]

I won't go through what the guarantees in life are, but the changes we're proposing at these sites will not affect the access to the sites. We're not changing the approach aids. We're not changing the availability of weather and other essential information. This is simply a change to more efficiently handle.... We're talking about sites where the level of traffic, on average, during the day is less than one movement per hour. It is simply not efficient at those levels of activity to have someone there whose job is to advise pilots of other traffic in the area so that they don't run into it, because you reach a point where you're really trying to stop somebody from running into themselves.

We're not changing the ability of pilots to access the airports.

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

Mr. Crichton, even if there was only a single plane, the medevac, you cannot tell me that this service might be jeopardized. We have always provided this type of service to our communities. If your decision is purely based on economics, and if you need a bit of outside help to help you service these regions, you will have to ask for it. It's important that the communities retain the services they are used to. For those regions, medevac flights are the most important ones. I've been told that if you stop providing the service, the medevac flights might not land in those airports anymore. For me, this is a matter of utmost importance.

I understand that money is tight for you but your financial problems should never stand in the way of saving someone's life by providing access to these airports. If that's the case, you will have to meet with the government and say that, given current economic conditions, you cannot provide a quality service any more and ensure that those communities will be able to evacuate people with injuries, or people who have died, to fly them to a major hospital in Montreal or Quebec City. That will have to be done.

You can do all the studies you like. However, you have told us that you have no idea how many movements there are at Chibougamau, among other places, and that despite the lack of data, you know that there is less air traffic. I understand that you are experiencing financial problems. There has to be cost-effectiveness and you have to find money somewhere. The problem is that this cannot come at the cost of a single person's life. That's the problem. You said a little earlier that you could not provide me with any guarantees. I understand. You are an intelligent man and my information is probably correct. But it could jeopardize medevac flights at these airports. For me, this is unacceptable. I want you to understand where I'm coming from.

[John Crichton]

Yes, thank you. I understand, but I don't want you to misunderstand me. Nothing we are proposing here would in any way, shape or form limit the ability of medevac flights or any other kinds of flights to access the airports. That is simply not true.

This is not an exercise that's being driven by economics, in the sense that I think you were trying to express there. This is a routine reassessment of our levels of service, which is an ongoing process in the company and always will be. But the first consideration is safety. Nothing we're proposing here at any of these airports would in any way limit the ability of aircraft, including medevacs, to access them. And I would point out to the committee that there are literally hundreds of airports in this country at which we do not have any on-site services but which routinely handle medevac flights quite safely and without a problem. So that is not the issue here.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Your decision might cause Propair, a local company, to leave. Propair represents $15 million a year which is invested in Rouyn-Noranda. These people have just built a brand new building. If the flight service station closed, that would mean the loss of 14 jobs. Please understand that it makes no sense whatsoever. We are the gateway to the north. You might have the numbers, but what you're presenting us with is unacceptable to all of us who live there. My colleague has just talked about the eastern part of the province, but I'm talking about the western part. From Grande Rivière to Rouyn-Noranda, we service Hydro Quebec. If someone gets injured, the medevac would not be able to land.

Last Monday, the temperature varied between -2^o and -26^o over a distance of 100 kilometres. The airport at Rouyn was able to provide accurate information. Please understand just how important these airports are for those regions. I hope I've made myself clear. It doesn't make any sense at all. If you do close them down, the private sector companies will immediately go elsewhere. If Xstrata cannot operate in the north anymore, what are we going to do? I have nothing against Toronto, but we would lose everything.

There is development in the north. There is going to be a mining boom in Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or. That's why we signed agreements with the airlines. So what will we do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Crichton, do you have a response?

[John Crichton]

Monsieur Lemay, again, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but we have never run into a situation in which an airline made a decision to fly or not to fly based on our services.

Is my old friend, Mr. Pronovost, still running Propair? Maybe I need to talk to him, but I don't want to ascribe motives there.

When the time comes to visit the sites and get a better understanding of some of the issues you raised, I can assure you that we will listen most attentively to what people have to say. I'll add that if any evidence that is produced indicates to us that anything we're proposing to do would in any way degrade safety, limit the ability of a medevac aircraft to get in, or result in a wholesale shift of traffic or the limitation of an important service, we wouldn't do it. I can tell you right now that we wouldn't do it.

I am simply sharing with you that our experience to date, as well as my own experience of 40 years in aviation, indicates something different, but we will see when we go to the site, and we will listen to everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the panel members for coming out here.

I was going through the presentation you made. You stated that Nav Canada's core mandate, and your only real product, is safety. On the other hand, you said when you would implement this review and complete the study that “implementation would not unacceptably increase the risk to aviation safety”.

To me, unacceptability should be, as Mr. Bevington said, any personal life. What do you mean by “unacceptably increase”? What did you mean by those comments when you talked about that?

[John Crichton]

If I'm not mistaken--and we'd have to check this--I believe that is actually language in the statute. I think it simply recognizes the fact, and this is from a regulatory point of view, so perhaps this question would be better directed toward Transport Canada.... I suspect that very subtle changes in something could, at least from a point of view of perception, change degrees or shades of this or that. Essentially I believe that's statutory language. It's not Nav Canada's language. I believe it's guidance for the safety regulations.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm talking about Nav Canada. I'm not talking about statutory language. I'm asking what you would tell the ordinary Canadian when they have concerns about safety. You said your core mandate is safety. I just want to know from you so that you can tell us and Canadians that they're not facing any additional loss of life when it comes to safety.

[John Crichton]

Oh, absolutely. And that's what we're saying; we would not propose something that we felt increased, in any material way at all, safety risk. We have both very objective and proven scientific methodologies to establish that. We also have some very subjective reviews that are made by people with the experience to do that.

So this is not a safety issue when it comes down, at the end of the day, to these things. It's not up to us. There is the independent safety regulator who reviews all that and then makes another judgment, and that's Transport Canada.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You said that Nav Canada takes pride internationally when it comes to safety. How does Nav Canada's safety record compare internationally?

[John Crichton]

It's the best in the world.