Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 11 - Evidence, November 19, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:47 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 2, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Senator Leo Housakos (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, today, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain conditions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
In this meeting, we will examine Division 2 of Part 4, which amends the Aeronautics Act.
[English]
Before I introduce our first witness, I wish to inform you that we have received briefs on this topic from the following organizations: the Canadian Bar Association, the Saskatchewan Aviation Council, the Helicopter Association of Canada and the City of Burlington. These documents are available on the committee's website, for our audiences' information.
Our first witness is Daniel-Robert Gooch, President of the Canadian Airports Council. I will invite Mr. Gooch to make his presentation, and then senators can put their questions forward.
[Translation]
Daniel-Robert Gooch, President, Canadian Airports Council: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today on proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act contained in Bill C-43.
My name is Daniel-Robert Gooch and I am President of the Canadian Airports Council, whose 45 members include all non-governmental National Airports System airports throughout the country.
[English]
We are here today because we have concerns that the additional language being proposed for the Aeronautics Act is too broad and captures a far greater share of the nation's airports than we understand was intended. The proposed language would give the minister new regulatory authority in three broad areas: the development of new aerodromes, the expansion of existing ones, and change to the operation of an existing aerodrome. These powers would allow the minister to intervene if she determines an initiative captured by one of these three scenarios would adversely affect aviation security or not be in the public interest.
How would a determination of public interest be made? What kind of operational changes would be subject to ministerial intervention? We do not know.
We understand from Transport that the language is intended to deal with new private aerodromes. That the department has concerns in this area is something we were aware of. Indeed, we participated in a focus group on the matter earlier this year. While the minister already has significant authority to act in areas of aerodrome safety and security, there may be valid reasons for the minister to have additional regulatory powers in this area for the aerodromes in question. However, the language goes far beyond the kind of small, private aerodromes we understand to be the source of the minister's concern.
As currently drafted, there is no qualification to the kind of aerodrome that would be subject to this new intervention role by the minister. The text proposes to give to the minister a host of new powers over what appears to be all airports in decision-making areas that were explicitly devolved to local airport authorities in consultation with air communities and air carriers. We do not believe it is the minister's intent to turn back the clock on the National Airports Policy, but our members have a very real concern that this is what the proposed change would, in effect, mean.
Since the early 1990s and the National Airports Policy, all operational and financial responsibilities for airports are handled locally. This change involved a well-considered and deliberate depoliticization of the kinds of decisions that would seem to come back under the minister's control if these amendments go through. Airports devolved to local airport authorities already consult extensively with their communities and users on the kind of development and expansion contemplated here.
We must tread carefully. There may very well be some who would suggest that the minister should have a greater role in the decision making around airports. This would, for the National Airports System, however, represent a major policy shift back to the pre-National Airports Policy era in terms of the role of the federal government in airports.
Certainly this very committee stopped quite short of that when it gave considerable attention to our industry just a couple of years ago. As part of your own comprehensive study of airports, this committee agreed with us that the airport authority governance structure is working well and that the structure should be maintained and supported.
We note that another broad review of transportation policy is already under way through the review of the Canada Transportation Act being conducted by David Emerson and his esteemed panel of advisers. That is the more appropriate forum to consider major transportation policy changes. At the CAC, we and our members have committed significant resources to this initiative, which is the kind of comprehensive, substantive review of air transport policy where matters such as this should be addressed.
Air transport in Canada is a $35-billion industry that supports 140,000 direct jobs. Airport authorities plan and implement key development programs costing from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. These projects are financed with significant consideration given to the legislative and regulatory environment in which our airports operate and in which they are expected to continue to operate.
Today, the Canadian Airports Council urges this committee to amend the legislation to properly focus on the new small private aerodromes we understand to be of primary concern to the Department of Transport. We were asked by the members of the House of Commons Finance Committee, before which we appeared on Monday, to suggest alternative language, and we are considering that request. One way to do this, for example, may be to add language that would have the broader powers apply only to aerodromes that are not airports as certified today under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. There may be other ways, and we'll happily work with you, your colleagues in the House of Commons and the Department of Transport as needed to help find language that can better meet everyone's needs. We simply want to make sure that we take the time and proper attention to get important legislative matters done properly. Thank you for your time.
The Deputy Chair: I want to remind the committee and our witness that the Transport and Communications Committee is doing a pre-study on this particular section on the budget bill, Bill C-43, but ultimately the authority for amendments to the bill rests with the Finance Committee. We can propose and maybe suggest in our study, but amendments can only be made officially on the part of the Finance Committee.
Senator Merchant: Thank you very much for your presentation. What exactly is the genesis for bringing forth this kind of amendment? You say you had consultations, but you do not recognize in these amendments the sort of things you talked about. Had unsafe circumstances been reported? Have there been a lot of complaints from people who are close to aerodromes? Why is this being done right now?
Mr. Gooch: Thank you for your question. I don't want to speculate too much about the motivations of the Department of Transport, but we were advised that the minister did have some concerns about her regulatory authority around new private aerodromes. I understand some private aerodromes maybe have popped up in the last couple of years that have presented challenges for the minister, and she wanted to clarify her regulatory authority in that area around what we understood to be new private aerodromes — where someone decided they want to start a new aerodrome in a community, for example.
Senator Merchant: So these are for new ones, not for existing ones?
Mr. Gooch: That was our understanding of the intent, yes.
Senator Merchant: Are you concerned that the terms for the powers of the minister are not defined as yet or are to be developed? Is that a concern?
Mr. Gooch: It is a concern. It's the breadth of the language that would seem to encompass all the airports in the country. We understand that it is the intention of the department to come up with regulations that would give teeth to the measures that are in the legislation, but we would certainly prefer to see the language of the legislation itself tightened so that the aerodromes that were intended to be the focus of this legislative exercise are properly captured and not the other airports that were not the intended target.
Senator Merchant: If someone wants to appeal a decision of the minister, where do they go? Can there be an appeal process?
Mr. Gooch: Are you referring to the private aerodromes in question? I'm not really sure what the minister's intentions are. We understand that the plan is to regulate in this area once the legislative changes would give the minister the authority to regulate. I imagine there would be a full consultative process as part of that, but I'm not sure what the end result is in terms of the regime that is envisioned around private aerodromes.
Senator Merchant: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any private aerodromes right now that are members of your council?
Mr. Gooch: There are not. We have 45 members, which includes all of the non-governmental National Airports System airports. The other airports that we have are operated by municipal or non-national airport system, local airport authorities, but they are generally the airports that have commercial air service that you would be familiar with from Victoria in the West —
The Deputy Chair: So national airports and regional airports?
Mr. Gooch: Exactly.
The Deputy Chair: None of them, it seems to me, would be directly affected by this particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Gooch: The way the legislation is crafted now, we don't see them excluded from the way the language is written. The opinions that we've received are that it's broad enough to include all of the airports, including our members.
The Deputy Chair: Wouldn't the minister currently have all the authority she needs to impose her authority, if she thinks certain elements are not respected by the national and regional airports? I get the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem the purpose of this legislation is to rectify any concerns vis-à-vis our national and regional airports. It's more specific to private aerodromes.
Mr. Gooch: That's what we understand the purpose to be, but the language itself, we would suggest, is perhaps not consistent with the purpose.
The Deputy Chair: We hear a number, and I was particularly surprised — 5,000 unregistered aerodromes in Canada, which we find to be significant. This is a good piece of legislation in trying to regulate and surveil these airports, to some degree, and make sure that they're not causing havoc in the communities they're implicated in.
What's your council's view on the government's surveillance programs vis-à-vis dealing with aerodromes? Other than this legislation, what do you suggest that we do? It seems to me that to have 5,000 unregulated landing strips in various parts of the country, given the concerns in today's new era that we live in, is disturbing.
Mr. Gooch: We're sympathetic to the concerns of the department. You say it's 5,000. I don't know if that's correct, but that would not surprise me.
Certainly, there may be a valid reason for additional powers for the minister in that area. Certainly the private aerodromes in question are not our area of expertise. We were aware of the concerns of the minister and we were consulted on behalf of our members. The interests of our members are more the safety and the impact these aerodromes would have on airports that are members and that may be nearby, for example. So, we don't challenge that there may be a need for additional regulatory authority for the minister in the area of these private aerodromes. We would like to see the language in the legislation tightened so that it's a little clearer that those private aerodromes are the ones that are to be captured.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. If there are no other questions, I would like to thank the witness for taking the time come before our committee again. He was already a witness when we did our airport study. We appreciate your commentary and will take your suggestions under advisement.
Our next panel is on the same subject. I would like to introduce Kathy Lubitz, President, Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada; and Kevin Psutka, President and CEO, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, who is with us by video conference this evening. I will invite Mr. Psutka to make his presentation, followed by Ms. Lubitz. After that senators are free to ask their questions.
Kevin Psutka, President and CEO, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, just for a clarification, when the last speaker spoke, you mentioned who had already submitted briefs to you, and we were not mentioned. I want to clarify that you do, in fact, have a brief from us.
The Deputy Chair: I thought I did refer to that. We did get your brief.
Mr. Psutka: Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the act on behalf of the largest aviation association in Canada representing those who fly for personal transportation and recreation, like a family car, and who are interested in preserving a viable air transportation system in Canada.
The committee has COPA's written submission, in which we addressed a variety of issues, including the intent of the minister, a lack of aeronautic policy that would protect the system of aerodromes in Canada and the oversight in not engaging the House Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. With only seven minutes to present COPA's case and in light of the testimony given by Transport Canada at the House Finance Committee and at this committee, we will not repeat the submission. Instead, we will emphasize two issues: process and fairness.
I am here because of a failure in the process that is supposed be in place. Transport Canada reported that there was an industry consultation. There was, but not with respect to this proposed amendment to the act.
What we were told and believed was that there would be amendments to regulations to require consultation on the creation of aerodromes, construction on those new aerodromes and their intended operations. Following that work, we would discuss an amendment of the act concerning the definition of an aerodrome. We expected a report from the focus group to guide Transport Canada in developing draft regulations and hopefully achieve consensus on a balanced way forward that would achieve the minister's goal, in the words of Mr. Roussel yesterday, "not to limit the freedom to fly but, rather, to provide greater regulatory predictability and more effective tools to promote safe flying."
Industry has been engaged in these other discussions for about 11 months, including a focus group. However, until this proposed amendment to the act appeared in Bill C-43, COPA and none of the participants in the consultation whom we have contacted knew about this proposed amendment. Instead of following the established process leading toward consensus, a completely different act amendment appeared buried in an unrelated bill to create new, very broad ministerial powers to unilaterally prohibit aviation and avoid the Statutory Instruments Act. For COPA, this changes the entire course of our discussions, and we are confident that many if at all participants in the consultation feel the same.
As a minimum, the significant change should have been discussed with the industry before it reached this stage. Instead, we find ourselves having to educate Parliament in very short bursts and in hastily arranged appearances before committees on the complexities of aviation and the far-reaching implications that the act amendment will have. This is not an appropriate forum for this discussion.
So the failure to consult with industry on the amendment is an indication of the failure of the process that should have been in place in an open government.
We will now address fairness.
Mr. Roussel mentioned again Transport Canada's discomfort with having "heard from the provinces, municipalities and Canadians concerning an increasing number of complex issues related to the construction of new aerodromes and the operation of existing aerodromes."
There was no mention of hearing from aerodrome operators and users concerning an increasing number of complex issues relating to new, incompatible activities being developed in the vicinity of existing aerodromes, such as wind farms, communication towers and residential developments. In fact, issues have been raised by the industry, including by COPA, on several occasions.
Mr. Roussel goes on to say that Transport Canada "has not effectively responded to the concerns of [committee members'] constituents." There was no mention of Transport Canada's failure to effectively respond to aerodrome owners and users, and there is nothing in the proposed act amendment to give the minister any power to address these concerns, including safety, except, of course, that the minister can simply restrict or prohibit aviation activity through existing provisions of the act and the regulations whenever an incompatible activity such as a wind farm or communication tower creates a safety issue.
We question Mr. Roussel's reference in the context of the act amendment to the need for better tools that would address his examples of wind parks and growth of conifers. The act amendment is strictly limited to prohibiting aerodromes, not protecting existing aerodromes or permitting new ones. In fact, several years ago an act amendment was submitted to Parliament that would permit the minister to enter onto an adjacent property to remove foliage that was becoming a safety issue, but this step in the right direction toward protecting aerodromes was never passed because Parliament had issues such as votes of non-confidence in consequent elections that removed bills from the table.
The one-sided nature of the act amendment to prohibit aerodromes without a similar ability to prohibit incompatible activities in the vicinity of aerodromes is unbalanced and simply unfair.
COPA is not opposed to consultation. In fact, we encourage our members to keep the community around them informed of their intentions to minimize fear that comes from the lack of understanding. In most cases, this has worked to the satisfaction of most involved, but I would like to emphasize that it is very rare that there is no opposition to an aerodrome. Like opposition to a new road or the widening of an existing road, not everyone will be happy. But, like new roads, new aerodromes or improvements to existing ones are essential to the Canadian transportation system.
What COPA is worried about is the devil in the details. What does consultation mean and to what extent? Will Transport Canada have the resources to deal with the potentially huge number of disputes, and ultimately will the minister use these unilateral powers for political purposes to simply make an issue go away?
Judging by the number of times that public interest has been raised by members of the committees and despite statements made by Transport Canada at committee hearings, we contend that public interest remains undefined, and for COPA this remains at the root of our very grave concerns. That is what the focus group established to review regulatory amendments was to address, and this is what this proposed statutory amendment completely bypasses.
Mr. Roussel mentioned yesterday that the process of establishing aerodromes in Canada to this point in time "has contributed to the successful state of today's air transport systems." What is at risk with the act amendment that is being proposed with so many uncertainties is the future of this system, from small aerodromes used for reaching otherwise inaccessible locations, flight training and for personal enjoyment, to major airports serving Canadians' travel and goods transportation needs, as well as the needs of the Canadian aerospace industry.
There is no crisis in Canada with new aerodromes being built left, right and centre, crowding out other uses for land. The trend is, in fact, in the other direction, particularly in larger urban centres where former aerodromes and airports are being redeveloped and lost to aviation. Buttonville in Markham, which holds Canada's largest flight school, is one example.
We recommend that the act amendment be returned to Transport Canada for additional work, including discussions with the representative of the entire industry as an integral part of the process that we embarked on 11 months ago.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, sir.
Ms. Lubitz, you have the floor.
Kathy Lubitz, President, Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada: Thank you for the invitation to speak. I am the President of the Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada, speaking on behalf of the owners and pilots of over 7,000 ultralight and light sport aircraft and on behalf of aerodrome owners of unimproved grass runways all across Canada where these pilots mainly operate.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my family also owns ultralight and light aircraft and operates from a grass runway on our farm. It is registered. It wasn't for 10 years. It operated as an unregistered aerodrome.
I'm here because we think that the effect of these amendments will allow the Minister of Transport to unilaterally halt the expansion, development or establishment of aerodromes in this country, and we think that is wrong.
We also think it is wrong that the minister's new powers would not also include the ability or the requirement to intercede on behalf of existing aerodromes where aviation safety is compromised by the erection of nearby structures, especially wind turbines, given the provisions of Ontario's Green Energy Act.
It is too important to be implemented with the ambiguous wording in its current form without a real effort towards public consultation and without proper review by people who know what's at stake here.
The negative implications for the network of airports and aerodromes, large and small, that serve this country are enormous. It is in the public interest, the national public interest, to have a network of aerodromes all across Canada, and it is the responsibility of the minister to protect that network.
However, unlike railroads and pipelines, which are also federal jurisdiction, the network of aerodromes can't be seen on the ground. Opponents of local aerodrome development only see the land where the aerodrome is located. They don't see or they don't want to see the bigger picture.
As an aside, there is a link to the health of general aviation in the country and the safety of the airlines and the airline operation.
The experience in general aviation of pilots when they learn to fly and of depth of background in the airline pilots contributes to the safety of the airline operations. For example, the captain of the Gimli Glider that landed when the Air Canada flight ran out of gas was a glider pilot.
In the miracle on the Hudson, those two pilots had experience in light aircraft. For countries where GA, general aviation, is non-existent or doesn't exist very much, like Korea, for Korean Air in San Francisco, those pilots did a visual approach. They didn't have the instruments, and they flew into the ground. There is a link. It's anecdotal, but there is a link.
There are no checks and balances with this amendment. It gives the minister the power to prohibit an aerodrome based on an opinion. There is nothing in the amendment about due process. Further, such an order will be exempt from the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act. There is no recourse to the aerodrome proponent. At the very least, an appeal process should be included in this amendment.
Because of the total surprise of this and the deliberate lack of consultation with the aerodrome owners who would be most affected, these amendments should be withdrawn until further consultation. Contrary to the Canadian Airports Council member, our understanding, at the same focus group that he was at, is that these amendments will apply to everyone. In fact, Ms. Currie, yesterday, I believe, mentioned that this applies to every aerodrome. Airports are also aerodromes, from the smallest grass strip to Pearson International Airport.
I even heard yesterday that when drones operate from a location, it becomes an aerodrome by default. I don't know how that's going to be affected here or handled here.
This is unfair because small grass strips on private property, where activity is irregular — most times, they are not used at all during the winter — have the same requirement for consultation that larger aerodromes and airports with multiple daily flights and night flights all year round do. The aerodromes don't exist in isolation. The public does know about them. Those 5,000 unregistered aerodromes are known to their communities. Their neighbours know about them and, in most cases, like them and approve them and come to visit and treat them as a community asset.
The one-size-fits-all approach won't work. An airliner cannot take off from or land on a 2,000-foot grass runway. It needs 10 to 20 kilometres for a circuit. A small Cessna or an ultralight can take off and land from a 1,500-foot grass strip and only needs 1 or 2 kilometres for circuits.
There needs to be a graduated approach to the application of these amendments, and that's under the discussion in the focus group to which Ms. Currie referred. However, that group is not yet finished, and it is premature to put these amendments in place without some structure around their application. The suggestion is to withdraw them until the consultation group completes its work.
To clarify a couple of terms, when Transport uses the term "engage," it just means to talk, to receive comment. When they use the words "to intervene," it's to stop or prohibit. That's the only intervention that's allowed. They do not have the power or authority to approve or protect aerodromes. Ms. Currie testified to that at the Finance Committee.
Transport didn't go into specifics, but I would like to offer a couple. The Edmonton municipal airport closed because the town grew up around it. The legislation did not give the minister authority or the power to prevent that airport from closing.
For Parkland, there was community involvement and consultation in advance of the development. In fact, I heard yesterday that that was used as a reference for the consultation framework that they're working on now — the fact that Minister Raitt got involved in that. However, that aerodrome was constructed on the third location put forward by the proponent. There were previous discussions before the minister got involved. Even though there was consultation, the proponent was taken to court. The only position the minister can take is to prohibit. If there is no compelling safety or public interest issue, the minister will remain silent.
On fairness, aerodrome proponents can face prohibitions, while activity on land surrounding aerodromes faces no prohibitions.
The amendment has no parameters around public interest. This allows for potential abuse for political reasons, like the cancelling of the gas plant in Mississauga by a provincial Liberal government so as not to lose the riding.
Again, as to the lack of consultation, I won't repeat that. The other two witnesses already did. But I'd like to quote from the scope of the focus group. I represent UPAC as a member of that focus group as well. At the June 16 meeting, "The scope of the focus group is to discuss the proposed regulatory requirements for consultation. The focus group will not engage in detailed discussions with respect to other regulatory issues associated with aerodrome development and operations." We did not know about these amendments before they appeared in the budget bill.
The cost to transport is not insignificant. Ms. Currie stated that the requirement to consult will save aerodrome proponents money, but Parkland still had to go to court. The cost to aerodrome owners to notify, then to address issues, then to answer to Transport if they get engaged, and the price of studies that might be required are also not insignificant.
In summary, we are concerned about the manner in which the act amendment was developed — without consultation. We're concerned about how far the power of the minister would extend and the one-sided nature of imposing consultation requirements and prohibitions on aerodromes, when no such Aeronautics Act consultation requirements or prohibitions exist on land uses around most of the aerodromes in Canada.
We are also concerned that this matter was placed in the budget bill rather than in a more appropriate piece of legislation. We therefore request that Bill C-43, Part 4, Division 2, items 143 and 144, be removed from the bill until such time as consultation with the aviation industry occurs.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. For somebody who was very nervous, you presented your case very eloquently.
Senator Merchant: Thank you both for your presentations. I must say that your presentations were very clear. Your concerns, I think, are legitimate, and they should have a good hearing. Unfortunately, as you have remarked, these amendments are buried in a bill where they don't belong. We have been objecting to the fact that with these omnibus bills, everything is thrown in there, and there is very little time to really analyze, hear from people, and consider them. I am not surprised, then, that you are saying that there was not much consultation before all of these amendments were put into this bill.
I don't have any specific questions because I think we have asked all of the questions yesterday and today, very similar ones to the ones you have presented. I guess we'll have a look at it, and we'll see what the committee does. I don't have any specific questions because I thought everything was very clear.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Ms. Lubitz. For my personal interest, could you tell me whether those small planes whose groups you represent — ultralights, we call them at home — come from a private airport, or a government or municipal airport? We see them in the air, but where do they come from? I come from the north of Quebec and we see a lot of them over the St. Lawrence River. But they do not seem to come from an airport specifically. They do not need a long runway for take-offs or landings. How does it work in your area?
[English]
Ms. Lubitz: First, my part of the country is about 10 miles from Kitchener-Waterloo, on the 401, in southern Ontario. However, I know that there are others in very remote areas.
The smaller the airplane, the less land it needs to operate safely. More than likely, most of them stay away from the government aerodromes because there is a mix of speed. It's like somebody in the fast lane on the highway going too slowly, and everybody has to go around.
The airports have to contend with airplanes that operate at different air speeds, and they have to make sure that they don't conflict with each other, so to avoid that, most of the littler ones stay away, and they operate on these smaller airstrips, fields, rivers or lakes where they can.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Can you paint a quick picture for me of ultralight users in your area?
[English]
Ms. Lubitz: In my area, we're finding that the users are businessmen or older people. They're not kids. They're mature adults who have some money and some time to enjoy their hobby, or they are businessmen and they're using their airplane to go to offices in different cities, so it's time and money.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: My question is for Mr. Psutka. Before we talk about Bill C-43, you express some concern in regard to Transport Canada on page 4 of your brief. The concern is about its actions to better monitor certain activities close to airports that compromise air safety. You mentioned certain kinds of infrastructure development that could compromise safety, for example. The question came up yesterday: is this also about the increasing number of drones now being used by private individuals and that are becoming an ever greater concern in the industry, both in Canada and, for that matter, everywhere in the world?
[English]
Mr. Psutka: The reference in the brief was to the erection of obstacles around aerodromes, the development of incompatible things around aerodromes and the inability to stop those on the minister's part, except at those 150 aerodromes in the country where the airport zoning regulations apply.
I heard the testimony yesterday regarding drones, and there is a great concern amongst the industry — and that's both the aviation industry and those operating the drones — about inappropriate operation of those drones. A lot of work has been going on in terms of developing regulation, but also very recently, within the last week, a decision on the part of Transport Canada with consultation with the industry to find a way to make sure that we can allow those drones to operate as safely as possible. Quite frankly, it's getting at the part of the population who just go down to RadioShack or whatever and purchase one of those devices and start flying them. It's an awareness issue.
We are particularly concerned because around the smaller aerodromes in the country, especially the unregistered ones, where a person operating a drone might not even know that the aerodrome is there, there may be conflicts between aircraft and these smaller drones, which can very easily bring an airplane down. We do have a concern, but I think the industry is working heavily with Transport Canada to educate.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: That said, coming back to Bill C-43, the question of the public interest came up. I asked Mr. Roussel the question myself yesterday. He defined public interest in three parts: social elements and their impact on local residents; environmental impacts, positive and negative; and economic impacts related to the whole gamut of airport services. He said, and I quote:
Those are all the elements that are involved in the decision, and so each case is different. However, it is also important to see how the provinces and municipalities can participate in these discussions.
It is a relatively general definition, but, all the same, it seems to tie in with Minister Lisa Raitt's intervention in the Parkland County Airport matter.
Could you tell us some more about the issue? What is your opinion? Is it acceptable for the federal government to be able to define the balance between promoting civil aviation and the needs of local communities? How do you react to that definition of the public interest?
[English]
Mr. Psutka: I listened very intently to Mr. Roussel's definition of those three elements, and, in fact, he said that social factors — and at the same time, he used the term "local residents" — impact on local residents, environmental and economic impact related to airport services in general. That was the quote that came out.
When he packaged social factors with impact on local residents, he as much as said that the social aspects of this are regarding the people around the airport rather than the airport themselves, and that's where the danger is in all of this.
While I expect that public interest should take into account the interests of all of the public, including the public that use aircraft as a form of transportation and recreation, it has been demonstrated far too often, especially when the federal government has not been involved, that public interest typically means non-aviation public interest, or majority rules, or the other ways to refer to that.
Our grave concern is that when they look at those elements, they tend to look at it in terms of people that are around the aerodrome rather than the people who are at or use the aerodrome.
As for the amendment in question right now, the proposal that's there gives the minister unilateral power to prohibit an aerodrome if it's in not only safety but also the public interest. There is no policy that allows the minister to decide whether public interest really does include the interests of aviation. The only policy in place right now is the National Airports Policy from 1994, as described in my brief that I gave, and it quite clearly leaves the fate of aerodromes in Canada in the hands of local communities, other than the 26 major ones that Mr. Gooch represents.
We're concerned with that lack of policy that the minister can unilaterally decide that public interest is not aviation interest.
Does that answer the question?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Yes, thank you very much.
I have one final question. I am a senator from Quebec; I live in the greater Quebec City region. You will probably have heard about the Neuville airport, which has been the subject of great controversy at the same time as the one in Parkland County, Alberta.
If they had to do it again, what should the promoters of the Neuville project do? Would the consultation process we are talking about be a way to improve understanding? If I can refer to your brief a little, you support the idea of informing people living in the neighbourhood. Informing is not quite the same as consulting. However, you explain clearly that, from your perspective, any time a plan for an airport comes up anywhere, it is always challenged.
Going back to the Neuville project, what was not done, or what should have been done to improve the situation?
[English]
Mr. Psutka: To my understanding, everything in Neuville was done properly, including the individuals who purchased the property going to extensive lengths to secure that piece of property, including agreements with the municipality to create that aerodrome there.
They didn't have to according to the way we do business now in this country. They didn't have to get that permission. They were outside the built-up area of a city or town, so they had the right to create that aerodrome where it was created anyway. In fact, they went four steps further before selecting that property, including getting an agreement with the municipality.
When they started that aerodrome, an individual living off the end of the airport put up a pole on his property, directly in line with the runway to create a very significant safety issue, and they had to go to court in order to get that taken down, and Transport did not intervene.
The answer to your question is they did everything they were supposed to do, and if this new process comes in as now defined by what the minister is proposing in this act regulation, I don't know that it would be any different than it came to now. I can say probably that at the end of the day, there would be a huge dispute that would go to the minister for a decision on what's in the public interest.
I can only speculate what the minister, in a lack of policy situation that we're in right now, would decide relative in the Neuville aerodrome. If the Neuville aerodrome didn't go there, where would it go? Where would there be a reliever airport for the Jean Lesage airport which is so desperately needed for the Quebec area?
Senator Unger: My question is to Mr. Psutka. I wonder if you would do a brief contrast from the Neuville airport situation to Parkland. I live in Edmonton, and I remember much of it. Would you do a contrast of these two places, the issues?
Mr. Psutka: I don't know in terms of contrast. They were both faced with the same situations. The people who started both of those aerodromes did it with an intention of dealing with an issue and a market for services in the proximity of two big cities. The only difference is in the Edmonton situation, they were dealing with the closure of the Edmonton City Centre Airport which had been in place forever and served a very important flight training and transportation capacity.
They went out and did exactly what the folks in Neuville did, and that is to find a piece of property as best they could find to serve both their needs and also not interfere to the maximum extent possible with others, and they purchased the property and proceeded to develop an airport on there.
The one thing they didn't do that the Neuville people did was seek an agreement with the municipality. I don't know why they didn't do that, but I will emphasize again that there is no requirement to do that.
In the new regime, if this consultation requirement comes in, they would be required to have that consultation. I do understand that they did talk to the municipality, but again, the devil is in the details. Does consultation mean that you need the approval of the municipality before you can put that aerodrome in? If so, I contend that in Canada, we would see a significant degradation in aviation in this country, because as I pointed out in my brief and today in my remarks, there are very few instances where you will have no opposition to an aerodrome going in. Since it's so misunderstood about what the value is of an aerodrome, what service it provides for everyone, not only those that fly, but for the communities that use them, medevacs, for firefighting, for police and so forth, it's easy to come to the conclusion that we don't want it here. Move it somewhere else.
Senator Unger: Thank you for that explanation. I am from Edmonton, so I know the Edmonton Muni Airport situation very well. I was out pounding the streets to collect signatures in favour of keeping it open. Gateway to the North, medevac — there were many reasons. Unfortunately, civic politicians didn't agree with the over 120,000, I think, signatures that we got.
Your comment in your presentation, when there is no accompanying power to prohibit incompatible land use near an aerodrome, it's simply unfair and not in the best interests, do you see that being an essential part of this bill?
Mr. Psutka: Absolutely. As I pointed out, there are a number of reasons why we are so flabbergasted by what happened. The fact that it wasn't consulted is one thing, but that it was so one-sided is another. If the minister sought powers to be able to balance the issues on both sides of the airport fence, we wouldn't be as flabbergasted as we are now.
I think if we had that as an integral part of it, we would certainly be a lot further to where we should be.
Senator Unger: I have one question for Ms. Lubitz. In your presentation, you talk about rather than fostering a spirit of cooperation and consensus, the new powers granted to the minister will create conflict and confusion where there are competing public interests.
Would you give me an example of that? I've seen so many airport issues. The Muni is a classic and then the ensuing Parkland. I wonder if you would explain that for me, please.
Ms. Lubitz: I guess the genesis of that comment is the fact that if you give people the right to complain, they will. So rather than working together and accepting, the complaint process will give aerodrome opponents the idea that they can stop it rather than having to work together with an aerodrome owner-operator.
It is human nature. What can you say? Rather than having to work together because "Oh, well, we have to live together," you can say, " Well, I can stop you."
Senator Unger: On the other hand, I have watched with interest the huge windmills that are going up over many sections in Ontario. I would be awfully unhappy if one was put up 400 feet from my family farmhouse, and no amount of protesting can make a difference.
I guess people learn from other examples that they see, and I think you would agree that an aerodrome is not something you would want in your neighbourhood. To go back to my case, the Edmonton Muni airport was there for 100 years, and the city built up around it and then it had to go.
Thank you both for your comments.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Lubitz and Mr. Psutka, thank you for being here with us and sharing your views.
We will be hearing from the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition on Tuesday and beginning our study on Bill C-3. Senator Dawson will be back in this chair next week.
Honourable senators, with your permission, I would now like to go in camera to discuss the draft agenda. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee continued in camera.)