I'd like to thank the committee for having me today. I will make my remarks in French.
The subject of airport costs is broad and complex, and we could talk at length about the negative consequences of the federal government's withdrawal from the airline industry. The representatives from Air Canada, WestJet and Air Transat made this point very well earlier.
My remarks today will be more focused on the cost recovery implications of the two federal agencies, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA.
Although I am indeed involved in regional air transportation as the head of the Coopérative de transport régional du Québec, as the chair of the committee mentioned, it is as president of the Mont‑Tremblant International Airport that I would like to speak today.
The Mont‑Tremblant International Airport, which has been in operation for 20 years, is a tourist airport, and 80% of its general aviation revenues come from international flights. Commercial domestic flights at the airport are operated by Porter Airlines and Air Canada.
So it's on behalf of my airport, but also on behalf of several other regional airports in Canada, that I would like to talk to you about a major inconsistency.
In the 1990s and earlier, when the federal government designated an airport as an airport of entry, or AOE, the cost of customs services was borne by Ottawa. However, a new practice has been in place for several years, that of providing a service, but on a cost‑recovery basis. The CBSA was the first to do this, and I think our airport was one of the first to experience the effects.
In 2006, due to the real demand for international air traffic to our airport, the federal government designated it an airport of entry. The CBSA then informed us that, despite this designation, it would only be able to provide customs clearance services there if we agreed to pay for them. We then understood that the operating budget from the federal government had not been increased to take into account the new services to be provided to our airport.
So we were faced with an impossible choice: to be treated differently from other airports or not to have customs clearance services. Since the viability of our airport is directly related to international flights, a refusal would have meant its closure. Since the fee at that time was only $275 per aircraft, we decided to stick to our principles and accept this practice. However, 15 years later, the clearance of a 4‑ to 15‑seat aircraft at the Mont‑Tremblant airport has increased from $275 to $1200.
There is a fundamental question as to why some regions of Canada pay their customs services out of the taxes paid to the federal government, while others, such as ours and Charlevoix, have to pay their customs services in addition to the taxes they pay to the federal government. A fundamental principle of our democracy is therefore being flouted.
In English, one says, “No taxation without representation.”
We must note that the Canada Border Services Agency, by invoking the cost recovery principle, has given itself the power to tax and, as an agency, it is not accountable to the public.
As a result, this creates two classes of citizens in Canada: those in cost‑recovery regions and those who are not.
As if that weren't enough, in light of the absence of government leadership, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has also recently decided to recover the costs for the services it provides.
Therefore, the federal government must regain control of the situation. Since it is the federal government that has the choice of whether or not to designate an airport of entry or a screening point, it must provide these agencies with the budget they need to carry out their mandate. It should also put an end to these agencies' practice of recovering their costs.