Speech by Kevin Psutka to
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications
19 November 2014
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Act amendment on behalf 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 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 but instead
emphasize two issues: Process and Fairness.
I am here because of a failure in the process that is supposed to 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 intended operations, and
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 M. Roussel yesterday, “to not 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 Act amendment appeared in
Bill C-43, neither COPA nor any of the participants in the consultation who 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 not all participants in the consultation feel the
same. As a minimum, this significant change should have been discussed with the industry before it had
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 a failure of the process that should be
in place in an open government.
We will now address fairness.
M. Roussel mentioned again Transport Canada’s discomfort with having “heard from Provinces,
municipalities and Canadians concerning an increasing number of complex issues relating 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
2
new incompatible activities being developed in the vicinity of existing aerodromes, such as wind farms,
communication towers and residential developments. There have in fact been issues raised by the industry,
including ones raised by COPA, on several occasions. M. 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 in the Act and Canadian Air Regulations whenever an incompatible activity, such as a wind
turbine or communication tower, creates a safety issue.
We question M. Rousel’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 of Parliamentary issues such as votes of nonconfidence and consequent elections that removed the 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 a 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 aerodomes 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 new 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 the regulatory
amendments was to address and this is what this proposed statutory amendment completely by-passes.
M. Rousel 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 system.” 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 the land. The trend in fact is 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 hosts Canada’s largest flight training school, is one example.
We recommend that the Act amendment be returned to Transport Canada for additional work, including
discussions with the representatives of the entire industry as an integral part of the process that we
embarked on 11 months ago.