TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 25, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Thank you very much for being here. We're meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on the competitiveness of Canada's air transportation system.

We're pleased today to welcome representation from the Air Canada Pilots Association. We have with us the president, Captain Tom Jerrard. Was Captain Jean-Marc Bélanger unable to assist?

Captain Tom Jerrard (President, Air Canada Pilots Association): I was going to apologize for that. He had an urgent family affair that came up and he's not able to join us today. He extends his apologies.

The Chairman: We understand.

To give you an idea of the way we normally proceed, we allow the time that you need for a presentation, usually around 15 to 20 minutes. We're not rigid; we're here until 5.30 p.m. if we have to be. After your presentation, we 'll go to a question and answer period. If we decide as a group that we allow four minutes, it means four minutes for the question and answer. Sometimes my colleagues take most of the time and other times they take it all. When that occurs, we move on to the next member.

So if there is information you'd like us to hear, just slip it into the next question. At the end, you'll have ample time to catch up and give us any information you wish.

So without further ado, Captain Jerrard, we welcome you.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think, from my part and maybe from your part, you'll be pleased. I think my presentation will be fairly short, and hopefully there won't be too many questions for me.

I do apologize that Captain Bélanger, as I said, had a family affair that he had to attend. And I must apologize at the start, too, that our French translation for our presentation is not ready. We had some problems in the transmission of that this morning and we haven't been able to get it ready for now. We more than likely will have it ready for later today, or no later than tomorrow morning, if that's okay with the committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to tell my Francophone colleagues that the French translation is not yet available, but that it will be distributed to them a little later today.

Will you allow the English copies to be distributed or do you want to postpone distribution until we have the French translation?

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): I wouldn't want this to become a habit. It's not a habit on the Transport Committee. As soon as the clerk receives a copy of the French version of the brief submitted by the witness, please send it to me and to Mr. Guimond.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Not a problem, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I thank my colleagues. We can say this is the first time, and we understand that it is sometimes difficult to get the translation on time.

[English]

Having said this, we will distribute the English copy, and our colleagues have agreed that we'll distribute the French copy as soon as we receive it.

Please begin with your presentation.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I thank the committee for that decision.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, on behalf of the 2,100 members of the Air Canada Pilots Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee on the competitiveness of the airline industry in Canada. My name is Captain Tom Jerrard and I'm the president of the Air Canada Pilots Association. I'm a full-time pilot of a Boeing 767, and my position as president is an unpaid voluntary one. I can add in here that I must maintain my competency as a pilot, just as any other airline pilot in Canada does. So between this job and my flying, it's quite hectic at times.

I will make a brief presentation, after which I will be pleased to take your questions, as we've discussed already.

The Air Canada Pilots Association, or ACPA, was formed in November 1995 in response to the Air Canada pilots' growing dissatisfaction with their former union. We currently represent 2,100 pilots and our membership is composed of pilots who fly exclusively for Air Canada. We are the largest Canadian-based association representing airline pilots in this country. Members of ACPA are highly trained technical professionals. Our safety record is impeccable, and our members fly the public around the globe in a safe and professional manner.

• 1540

Our members undergo rigorous training year round to maintain their licences, which are issued by the federal Department of Transport. More so than in other occupations, the majority of a pilot's work is regulated by the federal government. As integral members of the airline community in Canada, ACPA members contribute to the competitiveness of the airline industry by maintaining our excellent safety record and by providing the flying public with service that is second to none.

I would like to cover a few issues of importance to our members and to the airline industry in Canada. I'll limit my remarks to the issue at hand, the competitiveness of the industry in Canada. There are many other issues that also affect our members, but I believe those issues will be best dealt with in their appropriate forums. I'll discuss airline safety, foreign ownership, code-share arrangements, and the issue of increased charges to the airlines and the public.

Under safety, by law our members must undergo a full safety check every six months. This includes practical written tests and recurrent full-flight simulator training. In addition, every pilot over the age of 40 must undergo a medical every six months in order to ensure not only passenger but also pilot safety.

ACPA pilots and Air Canada have an excellent safety record, as I've stated. ACPA is extensively involved in technical and safety matters, professional committees, and Transport Canada processes in its pursuit of a safe aviation environment. We take pride in and are constantly striving to place safety as our number one goal in the conduct of our careers, and ACPA encourages Transport Canada to continue its direct monitoring enforcement of safety regulations. We view it as very important that Transport Canada continue to do that. I will have more to say about safety when I talk about foreign ownership and code-share.

There has been an increasing amount of coverage on the possibility that one of the major Canadian airlines will request that the government lift the 25% foreign ownership restriction on Canadian carriers. ACPA is concerned about the impact such a move may have on the airline industry in this country. ACPA believes the airline industry is an important transport link for our citizens and our nation.

The spectre of foreign ownership begs to have the following questions answered: Should policy be changed to benefit one corporation? Do we really want a foreign-owned company competing in Canada to the extent that the remaining Canadian-owned companies are put out of business? Do we allow a foreign-owned airline to compete domestically with the dominant flag carrier without the ability of the Canadian carrier to reciprocate? An example would be domestic route flying in Canada done by a foreign-owned, American-controlled company while a Canadian-owned airline would never be allowed to do this in the U.S.A. Is that what we want? Do we want to see the entire aviation industry in foreign hands? By doing so are we risking relinquishing control of the quality and safety of airline service? Are we going to see foreign ownership at the same time as residents in Canada are severely restricted in owning shares? I'm thinking in particular of the restrictions on Canadian resident ownership contained in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

ACPA believes whatever is enacted must be even-handed, establish or maintain a level playing field, ensure that the future viability of Canadian corporations is not unduly jeopardized, and benefit the Canadian social fabric, as well as ensuring that Canadian residents have at minimum the same rights as foreign individuals or, ideally, have more rights. ACPA is concerned that ad hoc changes will produce unintended consequences to a vibrant, important industry in Canada, an industry best served by the present deregulated state.

I turn my attention to code-share, and I have to ask what is code-share? Hopefully, I can provide you with a very simple illustration of what it is.

• 1545

In simple terms, it is the sharing of one aircraft by two or more companies for the conduct of one flight or even a series of flights. Each airline sells seats as if the flight were being operated by their respective airlines. Passengers believe they will be transported in a seat on an aircraft operated by the company they bought the ticket from. The flight is identified, for example, as Air Canada flight 444 for passengers buying the ticket from Air Canada, and for those buying, say, from United Airlines, the flight is identified as United Airlines flight 555. Yet the aircraft used for Air Canada flight 444 and United Airlines flight 555 is the same. That aircraft may be flown by Air Canada or by United. Instead of each airline operating an aircraft that's half full on one route, in the code-share arrangement only one, hopefully full, aircraft is operated.

Although we recognize the benefits to the airlines involved, ACPA does have some concerns about the impact code-share will have on pilot jobs and safety. Firstly, ACPA is increasingly concerned about the impact of these code-share arrangements on our pilots when passenger levels decrease during a recession. Which pilots and which airlines will fly the more profitable routes when there is a downturn in the economy? We must be assured that ACPA pilots will fly the routes designated by the government to Air Canada even when a recession occurs.

Secondly, the government has awarded routes, in this case to Air Canada, specifically allowing Air Canada to place its passengers on a foreign carrier on a code-share basis. Government-controlled routes are being awarded in such a manner that foreign pilots are flying their airlines' aircraft on those routes. In effect, the government has authorized and participated in the outsourcing of Canadian jobs.

Thirdly, we believe too little attention has been focused on the impact or impacts on various workers—not only ourselves, but others—should there be further global liberalization. We're worried that if this is expanded, it's going to have an effect not only on our jobs but also on other jobs in the industry. We believe this has to be addressed. Let us not watch the exportation of Canadian jobs through the government's awarding of code-share routes.

You're only as safe as your airline's code-share partner. When talking about safety, Mr. David Stempler, president of the Air Travellers Association in the United States, said recently, and I quote:

The problem is that when you put your code on another carrier's flight, you're putting your cloak of respectability and safety onto that carrier's airplane.

Recently, Air Canada and Delta Airlines suspended their partnerships with Korean Air because of concerns about safety. Canadian passengers buying tickets from an airline with a good safety record may, under code-share, end up travelling on a carrier with a lesser safety record, this thanks to code-share. The U.S. Transport Department is considering changes in its policies with regard to code-share to address this kind of safety issue. Our question is, what are Canadian authorities doing to assess foreign airline safety within code-share arrangements?

The last issue I'd like to talk about is increased charges to the airlines and the public. As members of the airline community, we contribute to the competitiveness of Canada's airline industry. With the devolution of the responsibility for airports to local authorities, airlines and passengers in Canada have noticed a marked increase in the fees they are forced to pay. In fact, the chief executive officer of Air Canada stated earlier this month that he believes these costs are spiralling out of control. He noted that airlines and travellers have absorbed an increase in such fees amounting to $132 million in 1998 alone. Also, on April 21 of this year Mr. Clifford Mackey of the Air Transport Association of Canada appeared before this committee and told you that the airline industry and travelling public are absorbing a total of $1.35 billion in extra costs compared to six years ago. ACPA would like to see action taken in this regard.

• 1550

Should the costs become too high for the travelling public, they will simply stop flying and my members will be unemployed. Our ability as an industry to compete in the global marketplace is increasingly being hampered by such costs, and we need to realize that the unions, the companies, the governments, and the public all reap benefits from a healthy and sustainable airline industry in Canada. The federal government, local airport authorities, associations, and even companies must sit down over the next few months and work out some sort of compromise on the amount of fees paid by the airlines and the travelling public.

I'm therefore offering ACPA's assistance to you and other government officials to help solve this problem, along with the other issues I've raised here with you today. The very jobs of my members are at stake, and I remain committed to protecting their jobs while at the same time helping to sustain a healthy and competitive airline industry in Canada. We believe in Canada and we believe that Canada is people.

Thank you once again for allowing me to appear here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for a very good presentation. Although I know that committee members are always very polite and gentle, having heard that you're holding an unpaid position, I know they will be especially polite and nice to you. I fail to understand why your colleagues wouldn't be able to pay, because I know you're doing an extremely good job doing both. You made an excellent presentation; you represent them very well. You can tell them that it's on record that the chair of the transport committee thinks you should be paid for the work you do—for what it's worth.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Well, I do get my salary from Air Canada, and from that point, I'm still paid. But all of us working at ACPA, all the representatives for the pilots, are pilots and we're all in voluntary positions.

The Chairman: Remarkable.

Capt Tom Jerrard: It's a unique situation for a union.

The Chairman: It's very generous on your part.

I have on the list Mr. Morrison, Monsieur Drouin, Mr. Cullen, Mr. Casey, Mr. Dromisky, and Monsieur Asselin. Is there anyone else? Mrs. Desjarlais. We'll go from there. We'll allow four minutes for question and answer. Is that okay?

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Yes.

Captain Jerrard, I won't actually ask you this question. I'll just make a comment. Since you're being paid by the airline and doing voluntary work, I would assume that you fly just as many hours as your fellow pilots, in spite of this fact. I'd like to ask you about your views on code-sharing. I'm a little confused, because you talk about this as being a job security issue, but I'm sure that the pilots for cooperating airlines, for whom code-sharing would present the same problem, would take the view that you have a chance here for pilots of Canadian airlines to be—that is, Canadian in the national sense—in a position to filch their jobs.

So it's a two-way street, and I don't really see the relevance of what you're saying here. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Capt Tom Jerrard: Well, one is in terms of the pay and the flying hours.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, that wasn't the question.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I know. I do love flying, and I wish I could fly as much as a normal line pilot, but it just isn't possible. I try to do about half a months' work to keep my hand in.

• 1555

But in terms of code-share, it's a very interesting situation. When times are good, as they are now—and this is where we recognize the benefit to the companies and to the employees—there is a good growth aspect to code-share, and the pilots, the employees, and the companies get along. Our concern comes with recession. We know that the economy goes through cycles. When things become bad, it's who is going to start shedding routes and which pilots are going to end up flying those routes, because it's which airlines/aircraft will be on those routes. That is of grave concern to us when that situation comes up. We would like to search for and find a means to address that situation in the future and for the future.

There's also a bit of concern that sometime in the future these alliances that you're seeing will evolve into global companies that step outside the control of labour laws within this country. We see that as something of concern in the future.

The other part of code-share is the awarding of routes. One of the examples is a route that Air Canada is now doing down to South America and is being allowed to code-share on. It's the pilots for VARIG Airlines who are flying that, yet that route was awarded by the Canadian government. We see that as giving away Canadian jobs, at least from our point of view.

I don't have the answers. As you've noticed in my presentation, there are a lot of questions.

Mr. Lee Morrison: But as far as that sharing with VARIG is concerned, I would presume that if the option of code-share hadn't been available, Canada might not have had that route to give to you. In other words, they wouldn't have been able to make a deal with the host country to have that route unless there was an agreement made that VARIG would get some of the action. In other words, it's a shared-responsibility, shared-profit situation. Am I off base on that?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think it's shared, and that's the key word I think—shared. I don't see any reason that Air Canada airplanes with Air Canada pilots should not also be flying on that route on a shared basis.

Mr. Lee Morrison: But you have to get the route.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Well, that's the point. Those routes are awarded by the government.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Jerrard. I have three questions to ask you.

You say you have fears about the abolition of the 25% control by foreign companies. Could this percentage be increased to 49%, for example, so that foreign companies cannot obtain absolute control, to enable companies in difficulty to turn themselves around? Things may be going well with you, but that could change in future. Wouldn't this kind of policy make our companies more solid, while retaining Canadian control?

My second question concerns the code-share. You mentioned safety. If companies associate with foreign companies, they would do well to choose those that are safety-oriented so they don't lose their reputation, which is good in this area. I would like you to give me an answer on that because this share should not enable travellers to get better ticket prices.

My third and final question, Mr. Chairman, concerns the delegation of airport administration. You say there was an extra $132 million in 1998. I would like you to explain the situation in previous years because I believe the amounts did not increase very much. This was frozen for a long time and the government suffered enormous losses in this area, whereas today we have implemented the user-pay principle. The people who pay for the service are those to travel by air. I believe this is better for the public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1600

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: Thank you for the questions.

In terms of foreign ownership, I believe we in Canada should see if we can find a Canadian solution. To go outside the country as the first or only solution I find may be putting the cart before the horse, if you will. If we can maintain a level playing field and allow Canadian citizens the right to buy, own and control the company before foreign owners, then I find that is possibly a much more acceptable situation. So I would encourage that kind of solution to be found before we look outside our own borders.

I referred to the Air Canada Act, as it's commonly referred to—I know it has an official different name—and individual people are restricted to 10% ownership. That means the employees of the corporation, for example, would not be able to bind together and buy the company, buy ownership and buy control of the company. Why are we disallowing that and looking outside the borders? I think those things should be looked at in terms of how we develop this.

In terms of the code-share and safety, the airlines themselves...Star Alliance, for example, has its own internal systems and checks and balances when they look at safety. They won't allow an airline into the Star Alliance unless it meets certain requirements. But maybe my question should be, do we leave safety up to the corporations, or is safety something the government should be regulating and ensuring happens? I think it's the government that should be looking into it and ensuring that safety is foremost out there and ensuring that corporations meet those safety requirements. Again, I don't have all the answers so I can't say how to do this, but this is where we're willing to sit down and participate in committees and whatever is necessary to come up with the answers.

In terms of the fees that are going on now, yes, in the past maybe we allowed, for whatever reasons, our airlines, our airports and the systems that support all that to get behind; maybe we let them deteriorate. We didn't put the proper maintenance in because we didn't have the money. So there's a new way of doing it now. What we're afraid of is that this new way will go to user charges for grand expansions into services that are beyond our capability as Canadians, or as taxpayers or just the consuming public, to pay for. We should look seriously at fees and make sure they don't go beyond what is really necessary for the proper upkeep of the systems.

I hope those answers addressed your questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jerrard, I had a couple of questions on code-share and then on cabotage if we have the time. But in terms of the code-share, if you're getting a greater utilization out of the equipment and capacity, then isn't it also true that there's a greater potential for more attention to safety if you're making more profits on individual routes?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I would have to say I disagree that there's a link between that and safety. I think they're two different issues.

Mr. Roy Cullen: But you also hear about transportation companies scrimping on safety—the trucking industry is a classic—because the margins are so skinny and they're working day and night and so they cut corners. But if you're getting higher utilization of capacity, then it would lead one to conclude that there's more potential for putting more resources towards safety than otherwise—if the flight was operating at 50% capacity, let's say.

• 1605

Capt Tom Jerrard: I could see where higher utilization...and as I stated in my brief, we recognize how this benefits the corporation and in the long term benefits the employees—higher utilization, greater profits. But I don't see, at least through my life, where corporations have put those greater profits into safety issues unless regulated.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a couple of nuts and bolts questions about how code-shares work. For example, Air Canada only code-shares with members of the Star Alliance, is that correct?

Capt Tom Jerrard: No.

Mr. Roy Cullen: They code-share with others?

Capt Tom Jerrard: They code-share with others.

Mr. Roy Cullen: And do they apply the same criteria as for the airlines that would come into the Star Alliance to the companies they would code-share with?

Capt Tom Jerrard: My hope is they would, but I don't know. You'd have to ask Air Canada.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Who provides the equipment? Is that a negotiated thing? On this route it will be Air Canada that supplies the equipment, on that route Lufthansa will, or how does that work?

Capt Tom Jerrard: What I see as the end result is that Air Canada airplanes are flying on that route and not the others. The internal workings of Star I don't know about. I don't know what parameters they use to determine who ends up flying the route.

Mr. Roy Cullen: It must probably be some kind of negotiated solution and perhaps some negotiated formula with respect to the revenue sharing, the cost sharing, the profit sharing.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Again, you'd probably have to ask Air Canada that question.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I should have asked them when they were here.

Just coming back then to cabotage quickly, if I have the time, you indicated you are concerned about a threat, whereas we had a witness—I think it was the Air Transport Association of Canada but I wouldn't swear to it, but someone with a reasonable knowledge of the industry—who I thought said they didn't see cabotage as a threat in Canada. Do you see it as a threat, and if so, why? And what will it lead to, from your members' point of view?

Capt Tom Jerrard: We do see cabotage as a threat. We disagree with it. We see foreign ownership or foreign airlines allowed to operate domestically as just another way to get into cabotage and operating routes between Canadian destinations. It's not allowed in the United States; they're vehemently against it down there, and I don't see why we should be allowing it here. It's going to allow larger—and I'll say American—airlines like United or Northwest Airlines, with their capacity and their bank accounts, to run on those routes and compete possibly at lower prices.

Mr. Roy Cullen: But it's not happening now.

Capt Tom Jerrard: It's not happening now because it's not allowed. We're concerned that it might be allowed in the future through the back door of foreign ownership, and we don't want to see that happen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you very much.

I have some questions about NAV CAN, and I'd like to have your comments on NAV CAN. I know it's not the thrust of your presentation, but I'm puzzled that today, or in the last few days, NAV CAN announced they're going to reduce their fees by $90 million and return that back to the airlines—$90 million a year, when they don't have their labour contract resolved with air traffic controllers. We've had some reports, and one in particular about an air traffic control tower that was virtually condemned 11 years ago and they're still not going to replace it. But they're reducing their fees by $90 million back to the airlines.

Do you have any concerns at all about safety or anything to do with NAV CAN relative to what it used to be when Transport Canada operated it?

Capt Tom Jerrard: No, we have no concerns about safety and NAV CAN.

Mr. Bill Casey: What about the reduction of $90 million? Do you think it should be reduced or reinvested somewhere else?

Capt Tom Jerrard: As I said before, I think any of these fees, whether it's through NAV CAN or any of the other services provided, should be fees that are legitimate to produce or provide the proper services and shouldn't be usurious or punitive.

Mr. Bill Casey: So were they usury and punitive before? Why is this $90 million reduction available?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I don't know. It's the first I've heard of it.

Mr. Bill Casey: All right, that's it for me.

• 1610

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky:

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you.

Since we're dealing with competition, my comments pertain to competition and the two major carriers, Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. They both have full economy fares from Thunder Bay to Toronto; you have to change planes there to come to Ottawa and return the same pattern. It doesn't make any difference what kind of plane you're flying in. It doesn't matter what size it is. Yet I know that we have information to tell us how much it costs per air mile to fly any given plane we have in our systems.

So if you have two different planes flying the same route, why is it that the airfares are identical? I'm talking about full economy fares. And every three to four months the fares go up 2% to 3% on an ongoing basis. I'm talking about competition here between these two major carriers. So that has to be considered, and that factor has to be put into this whole equation regarding competition.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think there is much competition between the two airlines. I think what you have is a third factor coming in, and that maybe is something like WestJet. WestJet has made tremendous progress in western Canada. It has picked up over 2 million passengers last year and maybe 3 million or 4 million this year. It's wiping out many of the lucrative custom or paying-pattern flyers in western Canada for Canadian Airlines. I know Air Canada as well has been suffering.

Can a competitor of that nature be a major threat to Air Canada as well as Canadian Airlines?

Capt Tom Jerrard: Those are all good questions. I wish I could answer them, but I think you'd probably have to talk to Air Canada for all of those. I can tell you about pilot wages in respect to operations like WestJet—

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, let's look at WestJet and also Canadian pilot wages.

Capt Tom Jerrard: —but when you talk about fares, no. If you look at an operation like WestJet, it's similar to the Southwest Airlines down in the United States. They run a similar type of operation. The interesting thing to note there is that the pilots at Southwest who fly 737s, which is a smaller airplane than mine, earn considerably more money than I do flying a 767 here in Canada.

So if we're talking about something like WestJet, who are patterning themselves after Southwest Airlines, and you talk about pilot wages, we have some problems that way in terms of what we're paid here. But when you get into fares, fare structures and that sort of thing, whether Air Canada is going to be able to compete with WestJet, you should talk to Air Canada.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, let's go back to your wages. Are WestJet pilots getting less than you are? Or let me put it this way, are the salary scales comparable?

Capt Tom Jerrard: That I don't know, because the pilots there are on a different system of pay. I do know they're on a different system, but I haven't been able to analyse that, so I can't tell you. But when you look at their type of operation and you look at the Southwest type of operation in the United States, the pilots' wages there are considerably higher than even what I'm earning. So if those airlines can do that and operate effectively, then I look at our jobs and our wages here and I don't see that we couldn't do it.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to drive at is whether, if all the costs were being reduced, including the pilots' wages, could we be more competitive?

Capt Tom Jerrard: What I'm saying is I don't think you need to reduce pilots' wages up here in Canada to get into the same competitive environment. All you have to do is look at the Southwest Airlines in the United States to see that's not the case. I think there are other costs in there that can be looked at and remedied. But without sitting down and doing a full analysis, which I don't have the capability of doing, I couldn't tell you today what all that would be.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay. Are you heading in the direction that you would like to see the Canadian taxpayers subsidize more of the services that are being provided for the aviation industry?

Capt Tom Jerrard: No, I disagree with that.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You disagree with that.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Yes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Is your Air Canada Pilots Association a union association?

• 1615

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: Yes. I guess I didn't make it clear in the presentation, but we are a certified union under the labour laws of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I would like you to speak a bit about Air Canada's service as opposed to that of Air Alliance, which is an Air Canada subsidiary.

I'll give you an example of service provided in the regions, the Baie-Comeau-Montreal and Montreal-Ottawa service. When Air Alliance departs at 7:40, Canadian at 7:50 and Air Montreal at 8:30, there's competition among the air carriers where population is very low. Baie-Comeau-Montreal and Montreal-Ottawa flights are very costly, even more costly than flights from Montreal to Acapulco or from Montreal to Paris, for which there are price reductions.

As regards ticket prices, the carrier tells me that tickets are expensive because there aren't many travellers, and users tell me there aren't many travellers because the ticket is expensive. We have a problem here.

The second thing that undermines the clientele is air carrier safety. We recently saw union employees walk out, demonstrate and strike. Do airline pilots strike only when their salaries are affected? Don't they make any demands when cuts are made that could hurt safety? I am alluding to the NAV CANADA cuts in the case of air traffic controllers.

Are you required to maintain air service in the regions even where service is not profitable? That's my first question.

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: You must understand that we're the employees of Air Canada, so you would have to look to Air Canada as to what services they will provide in terms of airplanes, and whether it's the main line or whether it's a regional airline. You'd have to ask that question of the corporation itself.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I'll ask you a second question, which does not depend on the company, but rather on users and carriers.

Are the cuts that have been made to NAV CANADA a concern for you as a pilot? Do they put you in an unsafe situation as a pilot? You know as well as I do that the number of air traffic controllers has been reduced in the regions. Control towers have been closed. Does this concern you? It concerns a lot of users.

Do you agree with the idea of closing all air traffic control centres in Canada and centralizing them in Ottawa or Toronto so that everything is controlled at a single location in Canada? According to this idea, all traffic control towers in Quebec and the other provinces would be closed and all operations would be centralized in Toronto or Ottawa.

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: It's an interesting question. I'm not concerned. The federal government has its safety regulations. I was talking earlier about the government maintaining their overview of safety and the regulations in there. As long as that happens, I'm happy with the safety aspects within Canada.

In terms of some of these cuts you're talking about, it's the first I've heard of them so I can't comment at this time.

Air Canada pilots are concerned that we maintain safety levels, whatever happens and whatever goes on in this industry, that we enhance our safety levels, and the government plays a major role in ensuring that happens.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Jerrard, for your presentation.

• 1620

What's ACPA's position on Canada's two-airline policy?

Capt Tom Jerrard: ACPA is quite happy with the two-airline policy. We support the government on that, under the parameters I understand the government has to the current date.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thanks. You mentioned safety, both in the safety section and then a little later in two other sections under foreign ownership and code-sharing. You even go to the extent of asking if, by putting an entire aviation industry in foreign hands, we are relinquishing control of safety in the airline service.

I think the point has to be made that the government takes its responsibilities for safety very seriously, and safety will always remain, and the federal government will always be steadfastly committed to having safety as its first priority, particularly Transport Canada. So whatever happens today, tomorrow or down the pike, it's necessary to understand that the government will always ensure the safety of the travelling public. We'll work to any extent to ensure that happens. It would begin with the members of Parliament in each of their ridings and go right through to the transport committee and the Department of Transport.

Imagine for a moment a code-share agreement with an airline that, in your opinion, might result in a less safe flight, for either equipment reasons or pilot reasons. It's hard for me to understand why Air Canada or any airline in this country would risk suspending its licence if it didn't meet the safety requirements of Canada. Code-share or no code-share, ownership or no ownership, there are restrictions that will be stiffly regulated by this country. I don't think any airline, in this country anyway, will take the chance of code-sharing with another airline and risk having its licence suspended, do you?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I'm encouraged by your comments and I believe that's the situation that exists now. We have a very safe industry. What have seen with code-share in just the last few years opens up a new door. We want to make sure that behind that door, safety record and those safety measures continue in place. To that end, I'm encouraged by what you've said. As I've said, on behalf of ACPA I'd like to volunteer to assist the government and safety authorities in any way I can to ensure that continues.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thanks. I don't mean to cut you off, but our time is short.

On foreign ownership, there's no question that Air Canada would be a very happy company in this country if they could be the sole carrier for domestic and international flights. I don't think that's a secret.

Capt Tom Jerrard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...corporation might like that too.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's right.

When we talk of foreign ownership, where does your organization stand? If you look at the rail industry in this country, CN Rail is 65% owned by foreign investment, but you couldn't find anybody in Canada to buy shares. Canadian Airlines, for example, is out there trying to get investment into their airline. Canadians don't seem to be interested in buying the product or participating in the ownership of that company.

You open up the doors and say okay to foreign ownership, but you limit the blocks and how much any one company or person can own to, say, 10% for foreign owners. Of course it's unlimited if you're a Canadian buyer of the Canadian product. Would you agree with that kind of scenario?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I'm not quite sure what your scenario is.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's opening it up to foreign ownership, limiting it to 10% held by any one person or company if you're a foreign owner. But if you're a Canadian, there you go, the door's open, buy as much as you want.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think that's part of the issue here. Right now Canadians are restricted, in terms of Air Canada anyway, from owning or controlling the company.

• 1625

I don't know why Canadians didn't participate in the rail sales, but I think we have to make sure that if we open these things up we open them up evenly. We're concerned about foreign ownership. We don't know what it means or what it will bring. That's why we would like to do some more research and find out. We bring to you questions that we think need to be answered and can maybe be quite easily answered; we're not sure of that right now.

When you talk about Canadian or Air Canada, maybe the employees would like to buy those corporations and control them, as the United employees and pilots have bought and control United. That was a situation where United was—

Mr. Stan Keyes: We won't be able to answer that question here today, because just the foreign ownership question would take oodles of hearings and time spent deciding on the best way to handle foreign ownership—

Capt Tom Jerrard: So our short answer is that we'd like it looked into a little more closely. We'd like at the very least a level playing field, and we do have concerns about it. Maybe in the end those concerns can be answered and still—

Mr. Stan Keyes: We don't want you to have any concerns about safety in any event.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Are there specific things the pilots have been concerned about safety-wise to date?

Capt Tom Jerrard: We generally always have an eye to safety. Under code-share we're opening up this new door, and we want to make sure that behind this door things are just as safe as they are with what we've known up to this present time.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Is that the same for the changeover with NAV CANADA? Is everything up to speed, or are there concerns there might be less of a safety...?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think at the time NAV CANADA came into being there were concerns. ACPA has a member on that advisory board. We're quite confident in and reassured by the way things have gone at NAV CANADA from that point of view, to the present time. We're quite happy with it.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Is that specifically in areas where Air Canada flies to major centres, or does Air Canada still go into a number of smaller centres where the service has been sort of downgraded as such from flight service station to something else?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think you will always see a flux in services provided. Years ago in a lot of places there weren't towers, and we flew in there quite safely. Then towers came in and new services. Now maybe in some places—and I couldn't give you examples right now—they've left again. I don't see where safety at this point is a problem with that.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: When the flight service centres or towers were in place, were they considered better than what was there previously?

Capt Tom Jerrard: From a pilot's point of view, it's nice to have a little bit of control of the traffic. It helps out your operation and provides an enhanced level of safety, from what was there before. But it doesn't mean you have an unsafe condition without those services.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: So instead of having ten lifeboats, you'd only have five. So it's still kind of safe but not as safe.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I suppose that could be an analogy.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Dromisky asked a question about taxpayers' subsidies. I'm sorry I missed it, but I caught part of your answer. Was the question whether you think there should be more taxpayers' subsidies involved?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: In order to be competitive in your supply...go ahead.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Then you said no. Is that what I heard?

Capt Tom Jerrard: That was my answer, yes.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: So in light of that, I guess I'm going back to the concern the airlines certainly have had, and you've indicated as well, that the cost of services at the airports and NAV CAN has increased so much because we're on, as I understand it, a user-pay basis, which has made it harder for the airlines to be competitive.

So I guess I'm kind of caught here. On one hand you're saying it's made it tougher, and then somewhere in your report you say we need to stay in the area of deregulation and we need to be concerned about the cost of these fees. Then you made the statement that there shouldn't be a subsidy. What exactly is the position?

• 1630

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think there can be a fair balance struck in this whole situation. I think we have to be aware of where the fees are going and ensure that the corporations and the flying public aren't being overcharged for the services that are there or that we're not extending our services beyond what we need and charging for those services.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: What types of services do you think have gone beyond what's required? Are there specific instances that have made you sort of leery about the types of services?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think you could look at some of the fees in all of these areas, such as the user fees at the airports and maybe some of the NAV CAN charges, and ask whether they are legitimate. If so, then that's fine. Then we will all have to accept the higher cost. But if they're not and if they can be pared back just a bit—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Do you have specific instances? I have your statement, but there must be some reason it's being suggested that services are being charged for that aren't really necessary.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think in general you're seeing an increase in service fees for a whole range of services across the aviation industry that we have not seen before. That has raised the level of awareness of that—

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Give me some specifics, though.

Capt Tom Jerrard: —and we're concerned that these don't get out of hand to the point where it jeopardizes the viability of the corporations in Canada. You have comments from the CEO of Canadian Airlines and from Air Canada's president that these fees are becoming higher and are possibly jeopardizing their profitability. We just want to raise the level of awareness to make sure that all these fees that are being put in place across the board aren't going to hurt the industry in general.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before we go to the second round, I'd like to get something on record, if it's possible. When the two major carriers appeared before us, the meeting was held in camera. I can assure you that the question I'm going to ask you was not asked of them.

I find it surprising that neither our witnesses nor our members have talked about Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International code-sharing. If I were to ask the carriers why they don't consider code-sharing between the two Canadian carriers and they were to answer because of the collective agreement, would that be a fair answer?

Capt Tom Jerrard: That's an interesting question. I don't see where our collective agreement would hinder that at all. I don't see where that would come into play with the provisions we have in our contract. What we want to do is protect our pilots' jobs now and in the future under any of these arrangements. We want to protect our jobs. We don't want to capture other people's jobs. So whatever we have in our contracts is going to do that. Hopefully, with that we'll allow the airlines, our airline in particular, to grow as well.

In terms of restricting an arrangement between Air Canada and Canadian, presently I don't see how our contract would do that. If that situation were to come up, we would be more than willing to sit down and discuss it with the pilots of Canadian and the airlines to try to come up with a reasonable contractual solution to whatever difficulties there may be.

The Chairman: I appreciate that response, because I don't think we can do this study and not address that issue. Isn't it amazing that we can code-share with other countries and we can't code-share amongst ourselves? To the committee, I say that we should maybe pursue this if we want to do a full study of this issue.

I appreciate your response.

Capt Tom Jerrard: These are some of the issues we'd like to assist you with, if we can.

The Chairman: I appreciate that.

We'll make the second round a three-minute round. Is that enough? Then we'll have a third round if you need more time. We'll start with Mr. Morrison, followed by Mr. Drouin, Mr. Dromisky, and Ms. Desjarlais. Mr. Morrison.

• 1635

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd like to revisit the issue of cabotage and then, if time permits, code-sharing again. You emphasized the fact that the U.S. doesn't allow cabotage within their territory, but I think it's self-evident that if we were to enter into an agreement to allow U.S. carriers to work between Canadian ports, the same rights would have to be granted to Canadian carriers in the United States. We'd never make a deal that was just one-sided.

That being the case, I really don't see what your fears are. It seems to me that the market down there is a hell of a lot bigger than the one up here. This might be opportunity knocking if you, Canadian Airlines, and WestJet could go down to the United States, pick up passengers, and fly them from O'Hare to Dallas or wherever en route. Why would this be a problem as long as it were reciprocal?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I think that's the key and what we want to emphasize, that we make sure we have a level playing field in the aviation industry.

Mr. Lee Morrison: So if it were reciprocal, you wouldn't have a problem.

Capt Tom Jerrard: As I said, if we could get that level playing field for whatever we do and if it were reciprocal, then yes, we would have to do it. We're concerned that is not what would happen and that we would not get those rights in the United States or elsewhere. We're concerned that foreign ownership could possibly allow a back-door route to cabotage in Canada.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Getting back to code-sharing, we were speaking, you and I specifically, of the situation with VARIG, and we didn't get a chance to really complete the exercise. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that when Canada negotiates with a foreign country for a route, there has to be reciprocity. So in the case you're referring to, in order to get a route for Air Canada, we had to give the same route to VARIG as a treaty obligation, if you will. After that arrangement has been made, what sense would it make for both VARIG and Air Canada to end up losing their shirts by operating on a route where there isn't really enough passenger traffic to justify two airlines if they can do the code-share so that in effect you have one airline operating but two airlines sharing the profits?

Have I got this all wrong?

Capt Tom Jerrard: We've said before that code-share is a very interesting subject. It goes into different areas about how we do this, and it's a problem for us.

When you talk about sharing and about what I think of as Canadian routes—this is a route down to South America that's available for the Canadian government to give out—it seems to me that there should be a Canadian airline flying on that, whether it's our airline or the blue team, if you will, and as well jobs provided to Canadian pilots and flight attendants, for that matter, on those routes. If we go the way you're talking about, we'll have Canadian Airlines and Air Canada selling tickets on everybody else's airline without any flying being done by Canadian citizens, residents of Canada, because those jobs won't be there.

I don't know how to—

Mr. Lee Morrison: But you still haven't addressed my question, Captain Jerrard. What I'm asking is—and this is what I want you to either confirm or deny—would Canada have that route to give to anybody if in turn VARIG wasn't given the opportunity to fly to Canada? Canada cannot unilaterally say they're going to fly to Sao Paulo. They have to get permission at the other end to do that, and they're not going to get that unless the local airline also gets the right to fly into Canada. Do I have that wrong?

• 1640

Capt Tom Jerrard: No, I don't think you do and I think you're correct there. We have the right to fly down there if VARIG has the right to fly up here. Why then is it just VARIG that's flying on a code-share basis? Because that's the only way the route was awarded by the government. I don't mean to criticize the government too much. What I'm trying to find is a balance with these code-share routes such that we're protecting Canadian citizens' jobs in a balance with what the corporations need to survive and what the governments are allowed to award.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I think we're finally getting somewhere here. You're telling me then that there is no Canadian hardware on that line, that it's all VARIG?

Capt Tom Jerrard: From our point of view, the route that was awarded was a code-share route that Air Canada can do on a code-share basis, and VARIG is the one that's doing the route.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Are there any Air Canada aircraft on that route?

Capt Tom Jerrard: No.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay, that's what I wanted to find out.

Capt Tom Jerrard: There are no Air Canada aircraft on that route.

The Chairman: Before we go to Monsieur Drouin.... If there was, it means that VARIG would fly parallel. There's not enough for both and that's why they code-share. In this case, the code-share benefits VARIG more than it does a Canadian carrier.

Capt Tom Jerrard: That's correct.

The Chairman: Do they usually balance another country? No, they couldn't, because how do you make it up to VARIG? So that's the situation.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Yes. That's the situation and that's the problem, and we see that as a problem for Canadian jobs.

Right now it's very nice because we have expansion, and everybody's growing and there's not enough aircraft and pilots to go around, but what happens when we have a recession? How are we going to take care of Canadian jobs in the recession under these situations? That's the question we have.

The Chairman: As a committee we'll come back to this very important point.

[Translation]

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Captain Jerrard, after your answer to my question about foreign ownership, I would like to tell you that I also prefer it to be made in Canada. However, we should not close the door in the event we need foreign interests and if we want to be certain of retaining a Canadian majority.

You are a member of a volunteer association. I would like to know whether your association exchanges information with other pilot associations in the United States, France, England or Germany to determine the costs that users must pay at airports or to compare safety standards.

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: With regard to investment, we use the words “investment”, “ownership” and “control” simultaneously or as meaning one thing. I see them as a couple of different things. Investment to me is different; you buy a few shares, you hope they go up in price. As for ownership, if you buy enough shares you might have an influence in what the company is doing. As for control, you control what the company's doing.

So if we're talking investment but no ownership or control, then maybe my fears are allayed. But if we're talking control and ownership, then what we're looking for is what we are going to do to help protect jobs in Canada under those conditions. And that's where we have to go.

In terms of airline pilot associations, yes, we've quite a dialogue with the pilots of Air Canada's alliance, the Star Alliance. We've set up an association of Star Alliance pilots, and we meet biannually and we exchange information between those times.

As a matter of fact, in two days I'm going to Copenhagen for a three-day meeting with the pilots of the Star Alliance. That includes United and Lufthansa, Thai Airlines, VARIG, SAS and others. So we will be seeing them.

• 1645

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin: But you don't have any comparisons of costs and safety standards at the various airports? Is that because you haven't gotten there yet or because that's not part of your plans?

[English]

Capt Tom Jerrard: In terms of cost in comparisons like that, no, we haven't delved into that area. But we are starting to put together safety data and concerns between the groups with that regard.

To a certain degree, that's ongoing. But we're starting to work closely with these groups now.

The Chairman: Before I go to Mr. Dromisky, do you know if the code-share involves cargo as well, or just passenger?

Capt Tom Jerrard: Well, since we don't do very many cargo flights other than belly cargo, I guess I would have to say I'm not sure. I think there have been some announcements recently from the airlines about code-share cargo, but I'm not sure what that would entail or how that's going together.

The Chairman: We'll have to look into that also.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Captain. I appreciate the kinds of comments you have presented in your paper as well as those you have stated here pertaining to safety, and my comments pertain to that area as well.

When people get on the plane in Thunder Bay—that's where I'm from—and they're nervous, I always tell them, look, there are two guys in the front of that plane, or maybe three, plus the crew—

Capt Tom Jerrard: Or two pilots, these days.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes. And I tell them, you know, not one of them wants to die. They're extremely well trained and competent, very diligent, and they look after their craft. In other words, they have to make sure everything is perfect before they take off from the ground. To me that's extremely important.

However, when I take a look at statistics, I see that a little over 80% of the crashes in this country, and in the United States as well, are created by pilot error. Right? That's a very high statistic. I look back and I see that a lot of them are small planes. These are the cowboys of the skies. You know, the bush pilots and everyone else are included in that grand figure. But the ones that survive become pilots like you. Quite a few of them go from step to step, and become pilots.

My concern is that if they become pilots of passenger planes like the one I travel on all the time, that attitude might be still there. They might still have that quality in their personality of being great risk takers. That's what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the development of a safety culture among pilots. What is your union doing to develop and nurture a safety culture among its members?

Capt Tom Jerrard: Although this union hasn't been around long, I think the pilots in Air Canada have been around for sixty-odd years and we've always participated, in the previous union and this one to a great extent, in safety issues.

We have, within our association, a technical and safety division, and they are always researching and going to seminars, providing information or input to our corporation to assist in the corporation's enhancement of safety. We're always working on that level. I think we want to continue to do that, and we will continue to do that. We want to enhance safety. We want to ensure that it's the best we can provide from our point of view in this country and elsewhere, and that's why we tend to bring it up. We raise it when there are new situations. We want to make sure it's looked at in those new situations, and to ensure that those aspects are at the highest level.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: So there are mechanisms or strategies to apply constant pressure and awareness of safety factors within your union?

Capt Tom Jerrard: Oh, always.

Our monthly journal that we publish for our pilots always has two or three pages dedicated to safety issues and the technical safety aspects.

• 1650

The Chairman: For the record, I'm very confident in saying that Canadian pilots are amongst the best trained and are amongst the best, if not the best, in the world. There's no doubt about that. Safety is always number one, and the companies could make more money if safety were not number one. I know that, as a former airline employee.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I might add, not only at this level but at the other levels the honourable member was talking about, they're trained well down there when they're coming up. They're given training in pilot responsibilities and crew resource management training. So I think our training in Canada is the best in terms of airline pilots.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

I should mention I allowed the question to stand, although it wasn't addressing competition. It was shorter to let it go than to have a debate justifying competition. That's why I made the comment at the end that pilot safety is not an issue in competition, because if it is, it puts us at an advantage because our pilots are amongst the best, if not the best.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: We can't let it go, and I do believe it makes a difference in competition. I agree. We have a very safe industry and generally we have well-trained pilots who are safety conscious. There's no doubt in my mind—I've seen it in numerous workplaces—that when things get tight it's one of the first things to go. We do have to build a safety culture. Workplaces are still in the process of doing that. It's in its junior years, so we're still in the building process. When things get tight, that's one of the things that are easy to let go.

I used to use the argument that two pilots are up there. But 26 miners died in Westray. I don't believe they thought it was safe, not for a second, but they were pushed into the corner and that's where it was. Also, every time I hear of an accident that says “pilot error” I figure, my God, they are the worst criminals around; everything we're hearing is pilot error.

The bottom line is that when somebody dies on the operation table, do we say it's the surgeon's error? Hell no, they died; something went wrong. Well, something went wrong. We can't always blame the pilots. If it's the visibility, it's up to the pilot to decide if it's visible. Meanwhile, you don't have anyone down on the ground to tell you what the different conditions are. So they're forced into taking a chance.

I had to get my 2¢ worth in.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Thank you for those comments.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: On foreign control, I'm just going to relate this to what I saw in the U.K. when the railroads were privatized. They were given routes that were supposed to be spread out so routes that weren't too profitable were combined with other routes. One of the complaints was that only the better part of the route got serviced properly. They had the best equipment and the best service; everything was geared to the better route.

I'm kind of feeling that if we did that in the airline industry and we had an American company take over, would we lose the better airplanes to the U.S. and get the leftovers? Would we just be the poor little sister because our routes weren't as profitable? Maybe if we had better pilots here, would those pilots go down and we wouldn't get the cream of the crop? We do have the best pilots, and I think they would try to utilize them if there were a shortage and we would get the ones that weren't so good. So I just want your perspective on that.

Going back to the services, you commented on services that have to be paid for and you didn't give specifics. I particularly wanted some specifics because it obviously seems to be a problem. A couple of weeks ago someone commented about art work that was being bought by an airport authority, and meanwhile they have these atrocious fees. Are you talking about those kinds of things, or are you talking about anything else specifically?

Capt Tom Jerrard: I'm just trying to remember what your first comments were before the fees.

On the foreign ownership, we're asking questions too because we don't know the answers. We're hoping and encouraging that a committee like this, or maybe a working group that's put together, will delve into these things and be able to answer those questions. Maybe in the end, my concerns or my members' concerns will be answered by a study like that, and we can carry on.

• 1655

But right now, we have as many questions as you do. We want to see if we're asking questions that you haven't heard before, and if we can get the answers and get some perspective on what's going on.

In terms of the fees, no. Again, I'm looking at it in general. As pilots, we hear the comments from some of the people getting off, and they're paying the $10 boarding fee here, and other fees there. I was at a meeting with Lamar Durrett, and he mentioned the NAV CAN fees, which have gone up considerably in the last year or so. So there's a concern there that these fees are going to be a detriment to the profitability of the corporations in Canada. We don't want to see that, because it's my members who are going to suffer in the end if the airlines fail. We see that with the Canadian pilots. We don't like what's going on at Canadian, from the pilots' perspective. We don't want to see our fellow pilots out of work. They worked long and hard to get jobs like that and they work hard in those jobs. They're experienced and proficient airmen, and we don't want to see them out of work any more than anybody else.

So when the profitability of an airline is threatened, whether it's perceived or otherwise, we want to make sure it's looked at and make sure that whatever fees are now in place that weren't there before are legitimate.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré— Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a question for our witness, but rather a comment for you.

I listened to the question from Mr. Dromisky, for whom I have a great deal of respect as an individual and parliamentarian. I don't want to offend you, but I would like to tell you that you're much quicker to act when it comes to ruling opposition questions out of order or irrelevant than you were when Mr. Dromisky, from your party, asked his question. I was even thinking that Mr. Dromisky would go so far as to ask our witness whether the Air Canada pilots prefer apple pie, sugar pie or raisin pie. I must admit that I have trouble understanding the relevance of his question in the context of our study on the competitiveness of the Canadian air transport system.

Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced that you will show the same tolerance toward the opposition when we hear our next witnesses. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I'll continue to chair this committee as I have done in the past. If you haven't understood, that may perhaps explain why you are not the chairman. Before Mr. Dromisky spoke, I didn't know whether he thought the Air Canada and Canadian pilots were competent or not. If they had been incompetent, that would have had an effect on the competition between Canadian companies and foreign carriers. As Chairman, I must listen first and pass judgment second, which is what I did when I learned there was no cause for concern because he believed the pilots were competent. That is why I gave that explanation and allowed him to make his comment so that I could determine his position. I will also allow Ms. Desjarlais and Mr. Guimond to make comments. That's the best proposal your Chairman is prepared to offer you. I don't intend to change my habits.

[English]

Is there anyone else, for the good of the club?

I invite you to make closing comments.

Capt Tom Jerrard: I'd like to thank you for allowing me to be here. I'd like to say one thing with regard to safety, and I didn't want to blow it out of proportion in this presentation. I think we should always be aware, when we're talking about being competitive, that we don't let safety slip in doing that. Maybe that's the main message we have in that regard.

Thank you for your time and thank you for the questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You brought a number of issues that we will need to study closer. We thank you for that and for the rest of your presentation.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Thank you. If there's anything more you need from me or our association at any time, feel free to call us.

• 1700

The Chairman: If you wish to have input and produce any written documents, please forward them to the clerk and she will make sure that all members get a copy in both official languages.

Capt Tom Jerrard: Great. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.