Evidence of meeting #120 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was northern.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Schetagne.
Finally for today, we have Mr. White.
Mr. White, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, please, sir.
June 6th, 2024 / 12:25 p.m.
David White Chief Executive Officer, Keewatin Air LP
Good morning, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on this important topic.
My name is Dave White, and I am the CEO of Keewatin Air LP.
Keewatin Air is one of the most comprehensive aeromedical organizations in Canada, providing extensive 24-hour emergency air ambulance services, including the delivery of industry-leading health and emergency services to Canada’s Arctic region.
Our company is a member of the Exchange Income Corporation family of air operators, a group of 10 Canadian-owned air operators providing air ambulance, flight training, scheduled passenger, charter, rotary wing and comprehensive aerospace services. Collectively, we work from coast to coast to coast as essential service providers in some of Canada’s most remote communities and, by extension, some of Canada’s most challenging aviation environments.
At EIC, we know we are vital to the communities we serve, and we always take our responsibility seriously in that respect. Throughout our history, we have established a track record of proactively doing business as a responsible and conscientious community partner.
Keewatin Air operates multiple Beechcraft King Air 200/B200s dedicated on a 24-7-365 basis to air ambulance operations that are complemented by our Pilatus PC-12 and Cessna Citation 560. Together, these aircraft transport over 3,000 patients annually, covering 2.3 million medevac miles in Canada’s most challenging operating environments.
Keewatin Air maintains bases of operation in Winnipeg, Churchill and Thompson, Manitoba; Igloolik, Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut; and Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Like many other EIC operators, Keewatin Air has developed essential services to northern and remote communities for over 50 years and employs over 250 Canadians. Keewatin Air's past, present and future as an air operator in Canada are deeply tied to our northern heritage.
That said, Keewatin Air is a contracted medical transportation provider and not a provider of scheduled airline passenger services. As such, our ability as a company to provide insight to this committee on how air travel in northern, rural and remote communities is impacted by the Competition Act is limited. We can speak only to our own experience, and I can volunteer some insights in that respect as to factors faced by all air operators that may limit the amount of competition the northern communities into which we operate can support.
First, the investments and costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of any aviation operation in northern Canada far exceed costs that would be incurred in the south. Infrastructure building and maintenance costs are higher. The construction season is short. Labour costs are elevated. It is difficult to attract and retain qualified staff, and maintenance and supply chains for spare parts are both more complicated and more expensive. The operation itself is challenging and prone to weather disruptions, which again drive costs up.
That series of conditions isn’t unique to aviation in the north. It’s broadly understood across industries that costs associated with doing business in Canada’s northern, rural and remote communities are going to be elevated no matter what industry you’re in.
The second factor driving costs for northern aviation operations is the application of the uniquely Canadian user-pay principle to the maintenance and development of aviation infrastructure. Broadly speaking, user-pay means exactly that: that the end-user or passenger pays not just for the cost of his or her transportation—or medical transportation or cargo shipment—but rather for the journey plus the imposed costs associated with the maintenance and support of every part of the aviation supply chain that supports their journey. These government-related fees can include air traffic fees, terminal charges, airport improvement fees and security fees. The list is endless.
In southern markets, these costs can be distributed across a large travelling population. In the north, with smaller communities separated by greater distances, these costs are borne disproportionately by end-users, making travel more expensive, likely decreasing demand and discouraging competition.
In conclusion, while Keewatin Air’s primary focus remains on providing critical medical transport services, the challenges we face in operating in the north mirror those faced by all aviation services in these regions.
The elevated costs of operation combined with the principles of user-pay create a landscape in which competition is difficult to sustain, which ultimately impacts the affordability and accessibility of air travel for northern, rural and remote communities.
Thank you for your time and attention. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. White, for your opening remarks.
I will now turn the floor back to the discussion that we were having on Dr. Lewis's motion, as well as the amendment that was put forward by Mr. Bachrach.
Next in line, I have Mr. Bittle to speak.
The floor is yours, sir.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much. Hopefully, we can get this done quickly.
I'll first ask for unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Bachrach's amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Do I have unanimous consent for Mr. Bachrach to withdraw his amendment?
I see heads nodding in favour. It's withdrawn.
Mr. Bittle, go ahead please.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I propose an amendment. Hopefully, this is something we can all agree to or all walk away from a little bit unhappy, which is, as I was told in law school, a sign of a good settlement.
Having the understanding that there are some inaccuracies—or maybe more than some, depending who you ask—in the first two paragraphs, I would amend the motion by striking those two paragraphs.
The next amendment would be changing “seven days” to “30 days”. The rest of the motion would remain.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Does everybody understand the terms of the amendment proposed by Mr. Bittle, or do we require clarification?
It's pretty straightforward. It's basically striking the first two paragraphs and replacing “seven days” with “30 days”.
Are there any questions, comments or discussion on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bittle?
Dr. Lewis.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Yes.
May I have the rationale for extending it to 30 days, which is beyond the time that we will be sitting for this session?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
You're asking an organization to go through and do a comprehensive study.
As we've heard from the CIB routinely, the due diligence that they do on projects is extensive. Though I know the Conservatives have been critical of the due diligence they do, I think they want to ensure that they're in full compliance with an order, because then it becomes an issue of contempt.
I'm happy to change it to a “request” from an “order”, but if we're going to do an order, let's at least give a reasonable period of time to ensure that all documents are provided.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Mr. Bachrach, go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think the key thing around the timeline for the document production is the time required for translation. Given that we don't know how many documents there are, it's probably better to err a bit on the side of caution.
Our practice at OGGO—another very convivial and co-operative committee that I have the pleasure of sitting on—is to give 21 days for document production. That, so far, has allowed all sorts of documents to be produced translated.
I don't know if Mr. Bittle would be open to 21 days.
At a certain point, it feels like we're splitting hairs. I think the goal here is to get the documents and to provide enough time for translation services, which I know are under considerable pressure to conduct their work.
I'm inclined to support the 30 days, unless there's a strong argument for.... Seven days seems like quite a short amount of time, considering that there might potentially be a lot of documents.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I just would like some clarification here. Obviously, we would prefer that we receive this while the House is in session. Perhaps that would be more of a 14-day type of a timeline, if seven is unreasonable. I think we can argue about that if we want to.
If the majority of the committee votes in favour of Mr. Bittle's amendment to delete the beginning of this motion and to amend the number of days, does the committee have the ability to receive that during an adjournment, or are we then looking at September 15 before these documents are actually turned over to us?
I guess I just want some clarification. I think 30 days is too long. I think that punts this into the summer and outside of the accountability function of a sitting Parliament. I would oppose it, but I'm just wondering what the implications are if it does pass, in terms of our ability to receive documents under an order.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
The clerk is currently researching that information. We're going to try to get that back to you as soon as she receives it. I know that's important information for you, so I'll try not to go to a vote before you receive it. I imagine it's contingent on what the response is.
Dr. Lewis.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have a point of clarification.
Mr. Bittle raised concerns about the first two paragraphs. In his discussion, he focused largely on the information in paragraph a, pertaining to the Auditor General, etc. I'm concerned about just deleting paragraph b, because it goes to the fundamentals of the motion, being that an individual resigned after it was found that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest, to say it as such.
I'm concerned about deleting paragraph b and his reasons for wanting to delete it.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I don't know that points of clarification are a thing, but this is what we're proposing. The substantive motion remains. I think this is an agreeable compromise, since it's not just I who have specified that these.... Essentially, the “whereas” clauses, which don't provide the substance of what the committee is going to do, are what's at stake here.
I think we can just agree to the substance with the one change. I believe the chair is going to provide us with an answer to Mr. Strahl's question.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
I can confirm that the clerk will send correspondence received to committee members, regardless of whether the House is in session or not. That information, once received by the clerk, will be shared with all members, Mr. Strahl.
Do I have any other hands up?
Was that a hand, Mr. Bachrach, or are you copacetic?
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My question, Mr. Chair, is with regard to the first paragraph, which is paragraph a. I'm just wondering if someone can clarify whether this matter is still under investigation by the Auditor General.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It's a good question, Mr. Bachrach. We'll look into that.
Mr. Bachrach, based on the facial expression I just received from the clerk, it does not look like we'll be able to get that information in a timely manner. Perhaps it will be 15 minutes prior.... However....
We don't know if it's the report that was published yesterday, so we can't confirm that at the moment.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My understanding, Mr. Chair, is that the Auditor General has released a report on this topic, so I'm just....
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The analyst tells me there was a report released on June 4, two days ago, entitled “Sustainable Development Technology Canada”, describing “significant lapses in governance and stewardship of public funds at Sustainable Development Technology Canada”. It is publicly available for members to access and read.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, but I think it's somewhat inaccurate to state that it's “under investigation”, given that the AG has provided the report. I would just offer that.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Okay.
I see no other hands up. I will now turn it over to the clerk for a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bittle.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)