Transport Committee on May 2nd, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

Actually, the motion that I put forward was to adjourn debate now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Oh! You want to adjourn the debate.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

You do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

With your permission, I'm going to consult the clerk, since I replaced our chair on short notice, and she has a lot of experience. I'll get back to you in a few moments.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Can we go back to the agenda at hand and not vote on this motion right today?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

No, you adjourned debate. It doesn't mean you don't get a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Yes, that is exactly the advice I received from the clerk of our committee. That is why I am immediately calling the vote on this motion. I call the vote. I now ask those who are in favour of Mr. Clement's motion to raise their hand.

(Motion negatived)

We can now go back to our agenda.

Mr. Sikand, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm actually going to give my time over to Mr. Tootoo.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Tootoo, you have the floor.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

My question is for Mr. Speer. As you know, I'm on one of your flights tomorrow morning heading up to Iqaluit.

Throughout your presentation you talked about the lack of infrastructure and the implications of that on an airline operating in the north. Throughout your submission you talk about the one-size regulations not fitting everything. I think that's one thing that most people don't understand, the uniqueness of flying in the north.

On the issue of fatigue, they're looking at changing the regulations for duty time and stuff such as that. I know specifically with the trans-Arctic route that you guys fly from Ottawa, all the way across the top over to Edmonton, there are some potential issues there. Could we first just get an idea of some of the issues and challenges around that for you, and also, as you pointed out, the complete lack of infrastructure in the north and how that relates to safety as well?

[Capt Aaron Speer]

I will address the two questions. First, the flight and duty time regulations will have a very significant impact on us in terms of the limitations they impose on flight time. It's very much predicated on some larger operations. Our operations typically begin and end early in the morning or late in the evening, when people travel into our hubs and then we take them out, and likewise when we bring people in early to catch flights. During the middle portion of the day, we have good infrastructure in place to allow for rest. We recognize those limitations. We've invested heavily in facilities and accommodation to ensure our crews receive rest while they're out on the road. That doesn't seem to be recognized.

On the other implications of days versus nights, in terms of responses, again, we have very good facilities in place to provide for and mitigate fatigue. We've actually structured our schedules around the cycles of the individuals. We think we've very heavily addressed those, but our efforts have not been recognized in the regulations because they are atypical given our areas of operation.

In terms of the infrastructure and the safety implications, I would argue that it's the biggest thing that causes me grief at night. The facilities we see in the north are very much what we saw back in about 1960 or 1970. They haven't changed very much since then.

Ironically, we've had comments about lack of familiarity with hand flying the aircraft. Because of the infrastructure we have, we can't use autopilot very heavily for approaches and landings simply because the approaches don't allow us to fly down that close to the ground. Our crews are actually quite proficient at hand flying the aircraft.

We have very limited weather services and very limited approaches, with the result that quite frequently, with very limited infrastructure, we're not able to land. We spend a great deal of time travelling for three hours only to turn around and come back again because the approaches didn't let us land where they would have down south. It ends up generating lots of back-and-forth, which further adds more flying for us, eroding time and adding to our fatigue issues as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Tootoo, I yield the floor to you.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

One of the other things I see in your submission is that you were involved heavily in the steep slope approach into Pangnirtung. We all know what it's like trying to get into Pangnirtung, where there is no GPS approach; it's all visual. I think it's about 2,300 or 2,600 feet and three-mile visibility, plus the runway is right in the middle of town.

[Capt Aaron Speer]

Yes.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

That's a safety issue as well.

You also mentioned the unintended consequences and the need for possible exemptions. Maybe you could elaborate on that also.

[Capt Aaron Speer]

Certainly.

In terms of the Pangnirtung approach, I agree; that's probably our most challenging approach. I've spent many years personally involved in that. The company invested several hundreds of thousands of dollars in testing and certification, requiring three separate operational approvals beyond the standard just to make operations off a 2,900-foot gravel runway viable with our aircraft, which we can't keep doing with our new aircraft.

In terms of the unintended consequences, I look at many regulations. I'll use the approach ban as a good example. It's predicated almost with a concept that everyone understands the realities of Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto with long runways and excellent approaches, ILS approaches everywhere. However, by structuring that, there is some limited infrastructure that makes those rules not fit.

I've personally been in a case in Iqaluit where I've been stuck holding over the airport when I can see the runway, but with blowing snow in the area, I can't land because of the approach ban. I'm forced to divert off to a much shorter runway and fly an NDB approach, circling inside mountainous terrain at night, which is arguably the most difficult and most dangerous approach to flying. Because of the approach ban, I couldn't carry out the ILS approach in Iqaluit, arguably the simplest approach, to a runway that I could actually see. There was no recognition for some of those conditions.

Quite often I get forced. If I can't land at one airport, I then need to fly two to three hours, a long distance, to an airport that's even less equipped for my landing, just by virtue of the inability of those airports to provide the same infrastructure that exists everywhere down south as a norm. Those norms are not the norm across the country.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Tootoo, you have one minute and 20 seconds left.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I have one last question. You mentioned it may require the need for some exemptions, or some modifications, to fit the uniqueness of the north. I was just wondering if I can get you to elaborate on what some of those might be.

[Capt Aaron Speer]

There are already several that are in place dealing with the weather situation that we're encountering. Potentially if they continue to force some of the regulations through without analyzing them, the only option is to provide exemptions to recognize the operations that we do throughout, say, the summertime where it's daylight all day long. For other operations there are currently alternate rules in place where the approach ban only applies to 60° of latitude and not above that.

So, again, if the regulations were designed to do that either they should apply or they should not apply, but if we don't consult and don't analyze the entire country, we end up with rules that don't work everywhere. We required exemptions to the interim order requiring flight deck access because they were driven through without realizing the nature of a combi aircraft with cargo carried on board the airplane. We required to add a third crew member just to ensure there were always two up front.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you, Mr. Tootoo and Mr. Speer.

Mr. Aubin now has the floor for six minutes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for being here with us.

I am sorry to take some of our time to introduce my motion, but it can't be avoided. The study on aviation safety is moving forward extremely quickly, and I would be remiss if I did not take the time to table it and submit it to a vote this morning. I am going to take a minute to do that, without explanations nor debate. It reads as follows:

That the committee invite the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, to testify as part of the study on aviation safety.

Just as with any study, points of view sometimes differ. And so before we draft our report, it would be interesting to also hear the minister's perspective.

That is the idea behind this motion, and I hope it will be supported by the majority.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much, dear colleague.

This is all a good introduction to my chairmanship of the committee.

So, we have another motion on the table submitted by Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is this a notice of motion, or does Mr. Aubin want to deal with this right now?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

My motion has been tabled for a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

We received the notice of motion on April 12. So it was tabled in due time.