Madam Speaker, I rise again today to raise the subject of an unsafe condition in Kelowna, British Columbia, identified by the Department of Transport over 11 years ago.
My question is brought on by a puzzling situation where Nav Canada within the last few weeks announced a $90 million reduction in fees voluntarily. I do not understand why it has reduced its fees by $90 million and still refuses to replace the air traffic control tower in Kelowna.
Allow me to read into the record the operational condition report dated November 4, 1987:
Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower a portion of the runway and taxiways is not visible. A runway incursion going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The margin of safety has been jeopardized. A restricted line of sight visibility has been identified as a major safety concern by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
This report lists only two possible solutions to the problem. First, raise the present control tower two or three stories to a height that would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas or, second, build a brand new control tower in a location which would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas.
The manager in reply to this report by the inspector said line of sight difficulties had been recognized as a problem in Kelowna. The inspector identified it and the manager confirmed it.
How can this situation be safe now and how can Nav Canada refuse to replace the air traffic control tower or raise the present one? How can it be safe now when it was not safe in 1987? Why was the tower required to be replaced in 1987 but is not required to be now?
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport please reply to that question and explain why Nav Canada is reducing its charges by $90 million and still refusing to replace the condemned tower in Kelowna?