Transport Committee on June 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you much, Dr. Lewis.

Before we continue, do I have agreement from committee members to thank the witnesses for their time today and ask that they be excused?

I see no objection. Thank you so much, witnesses. You may leave the room now at your pleasure.

Next on the list, we have Mr. Badawey. The floor is yours, sir.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very polite reminder to members of the committee that this committee isn't just about transport. It's about transport, infrastructure and communities. I find it refreshing that we're looking to embark on a study for something other than transport and infrastructure. We're concentrating on communities.

That said, I recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada has an appetite to eliminate RDAs and with that the investments made in communities with respect to their corporate strategies. As partners in areas such as tourism, economy, social aspects and the environment, RDAs have made very specific investments throughout the years. One just made an investment in my riding for two wineries in the City of Port Colborne. They have been very well received.

Of course, it's to leverage a lot of the investments the communities are making. Without that opportunity to leverage, they simply wouldn't be able to do it. RDAs have become a much-needed partner for municipalities, communities and different organizations to get those works under way, and for looking at the strategies they have in place to accomplish that.

You know, when I look at the different funds that are available, not just from RDAs, Mr. Rogers' motion also looks at a whole-of-government approach. It's about getting dollars to these projects, not just through a regional development agency or FedDev but also through other avenues, such as the NTCF. There are many funds from many different departments at the federal level.

The Canada community-building fund is another one. That also offsets what would otherwise be placed on a property tax bill or a water bill. We are not only getting projects off the ground through RDAs but also eliminating the need to go to property tax payers and wastewater ratepayers. We get them off the ground through partnerships, once again, with the federal government.

Again, I want to remind members that this motion is very critical. It attaches itself to a third component of this committee's responsibility: communities, on top of infrastructure and transportation.

Another point I want to make is relevant to the study we're speaking about today. A lot of questions were asked about the how and the what with respect to rural airports. Mr. Davidson brought up some thoughts about remediation on properties and other costs attached to the study we're discussing today. A lot of that funding can come from that whole-of-government approach, whether through an RDA, FedDev or another department. It gives us an opportunity, once again, to get those projects off the ground.

The last thing I'll say, Mr. Chair, is this: RDAs and the investments they make lend themselves to the other two areas of this committee, which are transportation and infrastructure. When we look at projects, we see that they need capacity. It's no different from identifying an official plan in a community and a secondary plan that would attach itself to give that official plan the capacity it needs—whether it be water, waste water, roads, sidewalks, gutters or parks. The list goes on. It's any growth-related cost.

This study will attach itself to that as well. It will attach itself to the capacity needed for those projects. Some might in fact be transportation-related, like the study we're talking about right now. Some might be infrastructure-related—roads, water, sewers, parks or even other somewhat abstract costs, such as policing, community services and public health. The list goes on.

By the way—I'll repeat myself—this would otherwise be picked up by a property tax payer or a wastewater ratepayer through water bills.

I think this study is very relevant to the community aspect. Look at many of the issues, projects and so on and so forth that we've been discussing for the past nine years. Attach the community aspect to this. Give full respect to community strategic plans and being a partner in helping fund, through RDAs, those strategic plans, and therefore take the emphasis off the property tax payer and the water and wastewater ratepayer and get the projects done. They get the job done.

How many municipalities, Mr. Chairman, do you talk to that are under an infrastructure deficit right now, not only trying to maintain and manage the assets they've had and have, but also trying to move forward an agenda that moves the community well into the future, leverages existing and new economic development and creates a better lifestyle for its residents? That is this committee's mandate—transport, infrastructure and communities.

I congratulate the member for bringing this motion up. I congratulate you, Mr. Rogers, because not often does this committee actually delve into the community aspect of our responsibility and our mandate while at the same time attaching itself to the capacity needed with respect to transportation and infrastructure that adds to some of those strategies you're talking about through the RDAs.

Last, I'll say this: It's about leveraging. It's about leveraging the dollars that the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure would otherwise be asked to provide, and leveraging that with the RDAs.

Excuse me, Mr. Muys, I heard that. That was not called for. It's not bullshit. This is what we're dealing with in this committee. Choose your words wisely, please.

I congratulate Mr. Rogers because this is about leveraging too. It's not asking one minister and it's not asking two ministers. It's asking three or four ministers to delve into their pockets to provide funding for a myriad of different projects. That's leveraging. That's partnership. That's being fiscally responsible, and it's also being a partner with the municipalities to help satisfy the corporate strategies they're putting forward on behalf of their residents.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Next we have Mr. Muys, followed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Go ahead, Mr. Muys.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I can speak only from the perspective of southern Ontario and the Federal Development Agency of Southern Ontario. I won't pretend to speak for ACOA or other regional development organizations.

However, I do know that during the Harper government, there were many good investments by FedDev throughout southern Ontario, many in my constituency that I can recall, including in clean water tech, among other things.

Recently I'm recalling that about a month ago, there was the news release from FedDev Ontario for the investment of $1.7 million in a pasta maker in Vaughan to create 10 jobs. That's $170,000 per job. I would submit that those are not the jobs of the future. I'm not sure how this alleviates the property tax payers of Vaughan. I'll just leave that there.

Look, these development agencies all fall under industry, so this is obviously an appropriate study for the industry committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues seem very passionate about the debate that has arisen around Mr. Rogers' motion, and I understand that. However, I would also like to point out to the members of this committee that one of the witnesses with us today travelled seven hours to be with us and paid for a hotel room. We also have another witness waiting.

I think regional air travel is a very important topic.

In that context, I'd like to know if committee members would agree to suspend the debate on Mr. Rogers' motion, at least temporarily, until we hear from the witnesses and have an opportunity to ask them questions. We can always come back to this debate towards the end of the meeting.

I think it would be a good idea to ensure that our witnesses have not travelled here today needlessly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Do I have consent to adjourn debate on the motion put forward by Mr. Rogers so that we can continue with the witness testimony today?

[An hon. member]

What about Mr. Strahl?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have Mr. Strahl, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Bachrach. I have a list, so it's not just.... It's really just to respond to the fact that we do have two witnesses here.

Is it the will of the committee to continue with this discussion, or to adjourn and perhaps discuss this at a later date?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Did Mr. Barsalou-Duval move a motion to adjourn the debate? If so, we just go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Did you move the motion, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I can do that.

I think there are two possibilities. On the one hand, we can suspend the meeting and then hear from our witnesses. We could then take a few minutes at the end of the meeting to continue this debate.

On the other hand, we can adjourn the debate. I prefer the latter, but I'm prepared to accept the will of the committee.

I therefore move that the debate be now adjourned.

Then we'll see if we just suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The motion is to adjourn debate on this. We'll go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

We'll continue with the line of questioning, but we will do so after we take a two-minute break. We need to suspend in order to give the audiovisual team a chance to set up properly, so the meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, for the second half of today's meeting, we have appearing before us, from the Canadian Airports Council, Monette Pasher, president.

Welcome to you; welcome back. It's always good to have you here.

We'd also like to welcome Justin Lemieux, vice‑president of Propair Inc.

We'll begin with our opening remarks.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Ms. Pasher. You have five minutes, please.

[Monette Pasher, President, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today and to discuss the current study. Air travel in northern, rural and remote communities is a topic of great importance for the leaders of Canada's airports and the communities that we serve.

Before I begin, I acknowledge that I'm joining you today from Toronto Pearson, on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation people, and I pay respect to elders past and present.

My name is Monette Pasher. I'm the president of Canada's airports council. For those of you who may not know, our organization was formed in 1992, as the devolution of airports from the federal government to local control was beginning. The CAC serves as an industry conduit for airports across the country to collaborate on best practices and to work together on a wide range of significant files, including innovation, passenger facilitation, sustainability, supply chains and regulations to capitalize on the growth of air travel in our country. CAC represents more than 100 airports, including all of the national airports system airports and all that serve passenger traffic in every province and territory.

Canada is a vast and diverse nation blessed with breathtaking landscapes and a rich cultural heritage from coast to coast to coast, yet nestled within this expansive terrain are communities that often find themselves geographically isolated, lacking the essential infrastructure necessary for sustainable development. It is in these communities that the role of aviation is paramount.

Regardless of where Canadians live, there is an essential need for affordable and reliable air service. For Canadians in rural and remote communities, air service is not a luxury but an essential part of their everyday lives. Take, as an example, Canadians who live in Nunavut, where there are more than 25 communities that are fly-in and fly-out. They're only accessible by air. They depend on aviation for medical service, for fresh food on their shelves and for other critical supplies. However, the reality remains that many of our rural and remote communities continue to face barriers to air travel, ranging from limited flight options to prohibitive costs.

As stewards of the aviation industry, it is incumbent upon us to address these challenges head-on and to work collaboratively together with government, stakeholders and local communities to enhance air travel. Investing in airport infrastructure, supporting regional carriers for essential service and implementing targeted incentives are just a few examples of the measures that can be taken to foster competition and expand air travel opportunities in underserved areas.

All airports in the territories rely on funding from the airport capital assistance program—which we call ACAP—and also on territorial government funding. The ACAP fund was created in 1995, and it's only funded at $38 million annually, so that's $38 million to support nearly 200 small airports across the country.

To put that into context, the cost to pave just one runway is approximately $10 million at a small airport. There's extensive need across the country, especially in the north and in rural and remote areas, for safety-related infrastructure. We have been calling for this fund to be increased to $95 million annually to support the actual level of need across the country, and we were pleased to see it at that level throughout the pandemic.

Aviation in Canada is a network, and optimizing air travel includes removing barriers. One barrier I see is the need to protect our airspace from development. Another is that airports should not be a profit centre for government. This was a policy decision made when the airports were divested back in the early nineties, but it continues today. Are other modes of travel a direct profit centre for government—rail, ferries and roads? For most Canadians air is how they choose to travel, with more than 150 million trips annually, but for some in remote communities, it is the only mode of travel, so when it comes to public policy, air travel should be viewed through a lens of the essential role it plays in our economy. To put this in context with just one example, there are 9,000 people from Yukon who travel to Vancouver each year for medical appointments, and Yukon's total population is fewer than 50,000 people.

CAC is ready to work with the members of this committee to strengthen the journey for all passengers, including through a commitment to northern and remote communities. Let us recognize the transformative power of aviation in bridging distances, connecting people and fostering prosperity.

I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pasher.

Mr. Lemieux, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Justin Lemieux, Vice-President, Operations and Business Development, Propair Inc.]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, distinguished members of the committee.

As vice‑president of operations and business development for Propair Inc. and Edgard Co‑Chartering Platform, I'm honoured to have the opportunity to appear before you as part of this meeting. Thank you for inviting me.

Founded in 1954, Propair Inc. has the distinction as the oldest company of its kind, enjoying a predominant position in the specialized air charter and aeromedical transport industry in Quebec for several generations. Based in Rouyn‑Noranda, in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, the company operates 12 turboprop aircraft, including four ambulance aircraft, to serve communities in northern Quebec, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Our organization's success is based on dedicated professionals with superior expertise and a culture that fosters the development of regional aviation. Despite this, Propair Inc., like all players in the airline industry, faces many challenges and obstacles. These include a growing shortage of qualified professional pilots, unstable weather conditions on gravel airstrips, and limited facilities and equipment, to name but a few.

Is it normal to head to a northern community to save a life and not know whether the runway is cleared properly, not know what the weather conditions are and not have access to de‑icing equipment? These challenges must be addressed in a context where our activities are carried out 24 hours a day, and their impact on the stress level of the crews and, by extension, on the level of risk to transportation safety must be considered.

I would have liked the witnesses in the first panel to hear my speech today.

To reduce operational risk and improve essential services to Canada's remote communities, we need a commitment from government institutions to invest in improvements to airport equipment and air navigation systems, as well as meteorological services.

I can't help but refer to the latest Canadian aviation regulations on flight crew hours of work. These regulations are intended to reduce the risk, but they also significantly reduce the experience in the cockpit.

Yes, the labour challenge is a concern and is hindering the growth of organizations like ours that want to train more pilots and increase the frequency of regional and rural air services. Transport Canada made these regulations mandatory, without consulting us and without taking into consideration the operational realities of regional carriers. In addition, these regulations have required us to increase our workforce by 35% just to maintain our operations. It's difficult for us, as well as a number of other airlines, to understand Transport Canada's reasoning in this matter.

While the above points raise major concerns for our industry, I'm confident that they are being studied carefully and that we're all working to improve the accessibility and strengthening of air services. We all want to encourage economic development in northern communities.

For information, starting up a new air link connecting a major city to a rural community with an 18‑seat plane, at a frequency of five days a week and with three hours of flight per day, represents a financial risk of several million dollars.

This is a risk we would be willing to take, along with our federal and provincial governments, if a grant program were put in place to offset the losses associated with starting a new link. This would allow us to offer travellers a better rate.

Although the creation of new commercial airlines in remote areas is good for the economic development of those regions, there are other ways to improve air service, without even hiring more pilots or buying more planes.

It's in this spirit of solutions, and with the objective of improving access to the regions, that my partner Étienne Lambert and I came up with the innovative idea of creating a co‑chartering platform, which we named Edgard.

Our mission is to make chartered air travel accessible to more travellers in a safe and reliable manner, and to provide more options for travellers, primarily in Canada's northern, rural and remote communities.

In order to comply with current regulations, co‑charter seats available on our platform are offered only to companies and their employees. This approach respects charter operators, carriers, and co‑charters, while maintaining the benefits of charter flights.

Many large corporations, both private and public, need and use charter flights to move their employees. These flights are generally between major cities and remote communities in Canada. While 100% flight capacity would be ideal, it's virtually impossible for these companies to have a perfect ratio between the number of employees who need to travel, aircraft capacity and flight frequency, which means that seats remain vacant and unused.

As I mentioned earlier, the current model isn't available to all travellers, but only to companies and their employees. However, it would be possible, in collaboration with government bodies, to relax certain air passenger protection regulations and make these seats available to all travellers, without restrictions.

The main reason for chartering an aircraft is to have total control over the aircraft, schedules and routes. It's therefore unrealistic to imagine a company and its carrier offering its vacant seats to the public if they run the risk of having to compensate passengers if they exercise their right to reroute a flight to meet their own charter needs.

It's only by optimizing chartered flights that major companies, along with their partner carrier, will be able to improve accessibility to Canada's northern, rural and remote communities.

I would add that, in such a case, seat pricing should be done in co‑operation with commercial airlines to avoid unfair competition and to respect each other's operational realities.

In conclusion, my colleagues and I believe that everyone should be free to enter into a contract on terms and conditions that they consider satisfactory, especially if it promotes the accessibility and democratization of regional flights. In that sense, we're convinced that this bill can make a big difference.

On behalf of myself and Propair Inc. and its Edgard app, thank you for the opportunity to share some of our realities we face and our vision.

I can tell you that we've made a strong commitment to regulation and to working with the various players in the industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemieux.

We'll only have one round today, colleagues, of five minutes each.

We'll begin our line of questioning with Mr. Strahl. Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours, sir.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their patience and their presentations.

I would like to address Ms. Pasher.

You were obviously following our previous study on competition as a result of Lynx going bankrupt, essentially, and filing for creditor protection. We talked about a number of airlines that have suffered a similar fate. We had the major airlines and some of the smaller airlines as well come before the committee. All of them referenced airport fees as a key inhibitor to being able to offer lower fares and thereby increase competition.

We've heard all of them, and lots of stakeholders, say that perhaps the solution is that the federal government should stop collecting the $400 million in airport rents and put it in general revenue and reinvest it, or not collect it altogether and let the airports spend that money in another way.

My question is this: If the federal government were to eliminate, reduce or return those airport rents that are currently charged, would there be any noticeable impact to passengers in terms of lower fares, or would the airport simply keep that revenue, keep their airport improvement fees where they are and keep the amount they charge to airlines to fly out of those airports the same? What would be the benefit to consumers or passengers if the government were to reduce or eliminate those airport rents?

[Monette Pasher]

Of course, if we're going to be reducing costs in the aviation ecosystem in Canada, passengers would see lower costs, as this is a system that's based on a user-pay model.

When airports were divested from the federal government to our non-share business corporations, they essentially reinvested all profits back into the infrastructure. We're unique in that way in Canada. I think that that has proven to be a good model when we look at the time span, but we just faced the pandemic, and it was a challenging period. Other than health care, this is probably the industry that has been most challenged.

It went on for so long, and I think we're all still recovering financially from those impacts. Carriers are. It was certainly a challenging time for Lynx, which we saw, but challenging for all carriers and challenging for airports. Now we're on the other side of that challenge, which is the good news. We need to be looking to the future and talking about how we're going to grow our industry. It is a growth industry, which is good news.

When we look at that in terms of airport rent, the $400 million that is paid to the government annually for land lease would be better used reinvested in essential airport infrastructure across this country, as there is a great need for infrastructure improvements.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, as this might be our last public meeting in this session, I would like to use my remaining minute to get on the record the motion I submitted to the committee on June 11. I'll read it into the record. It says:

Given the amount of unfinished work at this committee, the committee instructs the chair to schedule five meetings between July 8 and September 13, to address outstanding business and pressing matters facing Canadians, such as meetings agreed to by this committee to investigate appointments at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the minister's appearance to testify on the budget, and other ongoing work by the committee.

That's the motion, Mr. Chair.

I would defer to my colleagues. I know that they do want to ask some questions. I wanted to read it into the public record and I hope that we can address it next week when we meet again. I didn't want that to happen behind closed doors. I wanted to get it out in public.

I don't know what the procedure is here for you, Mr. Chair. I'm anxious to allow my colleagues to have their rounds of questioning, but I did want to get that motion on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl, could you kindly clarify whether you just wanted to read your motion into the record or whether you are formally moving the motion? It will determine what the next steps are, sir.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Let's leave it at reading it into the record so that the public can acknowledge that I intend to try to get a vote on it next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Strahl. That concludes your time.

I will now move to Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us here today.

Thank you, Ms. Pashed. It's nice to see you again before this committee.

I'll address my question to you, Ms. Pashed. Can you please explain to this committee the role that your organization plays when it comes to airlines providing rural and remote connectivity?