COMTÉS UNIS DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL
ORDRE DU JOUR AGENDA RÉUNION DU COMITÉ PLÉNIER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 12 septembre 2017 September 12, 2017 9 h 00 9:00 a.m. ______
1. OUVERTURE DE LA RÉUNION 1. OPENING OF THE MEETING
2. PRÉSENCES / ABSENCES 2. ROLL CALL
3. DÉCLARATION D’INTÉRÊTS 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY PÉCUNIAIRES INTEREST
4. ADOPTION DE L’ORDRE DU JOUR 4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. PÉTITIONS ET DÉLÉGATIONS 5. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS
9h00 9:00 a.m. Présentation de l’évaluation des besoins Presentation of the evaluation of needs et planification des Centres de l’Ontario and planning for the Ontario Early Years pour la petite enfance et la famille Child and Family Centres (COPEF)
9h15 9:15 a.m. Présentation de l’Association des Presentation of the Prescott-Russell résidences privées de Prescott-Russell Private Residence Association and et demande pour que les CUPR aident request that the UCPR financially support financièrement les propriétaires de the owners of private residences résidences privées
6. SUJETS MEMBRES DU CONSEIL 6. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ITEMS
Gary J. Barton Gary J. Barton 1) Mise-a-jour du Plan officiel 1) Official Plan Update 2) Entente inter-municipale des 2) Inter-municipal agreement for services d’ambulance ambulance services 3) Futures rencontres du Pacte 3) Future meetings of the Pacte d’amitié avec les MRC d’amitié with Quebec MRCs
Fernand Dicaire Fernand Dicaire 4) Traverse pour piétons devant 4) Pedestrian Crosswalk for St-Paul l’école St-Paul à Alfred School in Alfred
Conrad Lamadeleine Conrad Lamadeleine 5) Projet pilote sur l’élevage des 5) Pilot project on poultry farming in poules dans les écoles schools
Guy Desjardins Guy Desjardins 6) Participation aux conférences à 6) Participation in upcoming venir Conferences 7) Projet de loi 148 7) Bill 148 8) Privatisation des aéroports 8) Airport Privatization
Pierre Leroux Pierre Leroux 9) Résidence Prescott et Russell 9) Prescott and Russell Residence
7. SUJETS DES CHEFS DE DÉPT. 7. DEPARTMENT HEADS’ ITEMS
Stéphane P. Parisien Stéphane P. Parisien 1) Système de communication pour 1) Fire Dispatch Communication les services d’incendie (réponse System (Town of Hawkesbury’s de la ville de Hawkesbury et response & negotiating mandate recommandation pour un mandat recommendation) de négociation)
2) Commentaires ou rajouts à 2) Comments or additions regarding propos du Code de conduite à the Code of Conduct for members l’intention des membres du of Council conseil
3) Déjeuner des maires de 3) Mayors’ Breakfast of United Way Centraide Prescott Russell Prescott Russell
Marc Clermont Marc Clermont 4) Ponceau sur chemin Russland 4) Culvert on Russland Road 5) Enbridge Gas 5) Enbridge Gas
8. SUJETS À HUIS CLOS 8. CLOSED SESSION
Marc Clermont Marc Clermont 1) Hydro One (Section 239(2) e) 1) Hydro One (article 239(2)e) litiges litigation or potential litigation actuels ou éventuels ayant une affecting the Counties) incidence sur les Comtés)
9. AJOURNEMENT 9. ADJOURNMENT
Ordre du jour / Agenda 2 2
TITRE - TITLE Centres de l’Ontario pour la petite enfance et la famille (COPEF) Services de base obligatoires de COPEF
1) Engagement des parents et des responsables;
2) Soutenir l’apprentissage et le développement des jeunes enfants;
3) Établir des liens pour les familles. L’évaluation des besoins locaux
L’analyse de l’environnement
Consultation des parents, familles et enfants
Consultation des partenaires communautaires et directions d’école
Inventaire des ressources existantes Statistiques Centre de la petite enfance 2009-2016
Inauguré le 30 avril 2004.
De 8,000 à 13,000 visites d’enfants / année.
Source : Département des services sociaux Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell Où résident les enfants âgés de la naissance à 6 ans ?
Densité de la population – recensement 2016 Où résident les enfants âgés de la naissance à 6 ans ? Distribution d'enfants de 0 à 6 ans par municipalité (6,645)
LA NATION 16%
RUSSELL 21%
HAWKESBURY 9%
EAST HAWKESBURY 3%
CLARENCE-ROCKLAND 30%
CHAMPLAIN 8%
CASSELMAN 4%
ALFRED AND PLANTAGENET 9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Source: Recensement 2011, Caractéristiques selon l’âge. Places en services de garde agréés pour les enfants âgés de la naissance à 6 ans
Source : Département des services sociaux Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Environ 1/3 des enfants de la région bénéficient des services de garde agréés. Les indicateurs de risques sociaux Index de risques sociaux Pourcentage d’enfants vulnérables dans 1 à 5 domaines de développement de l’instrument de mesure de développement de la petite enfance(IMDPE) 1 sur 5 enfants n’est pas prêt pour l’école quand il y arrive Services d’intégration pour enfants à besoins particuliers
Municipalité Nombre d’enfants desservis 2016
Hawkesbury 26
Alfred-Plantagenet 9
Casselman 9
Champlain 11
Hawkesbury-Est 0
Clarence-Rockland 60
La Nation 10
Russell 54
Source : Département des services sociaux, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell Communauté autochtone dans Prescott et Russell
Source : Statistics Canada 2011 National Household Survey: Data tables Les consultations des enfants et des familles Consultation des famillies - satisfaction (e-Valuation FRP) # TOTAL % PARTICIPANTS QUESTION GÉNÉRALE DE RÉP. EN ACCORD Quand j’arrive pour participer a ce programme, je m’y sens 1 150 bienvenu(e) et accepté(e) Les membres du personnel de ce programme me traitent avec 2 150 respect. Les programmes et activités sont conçus de manière à me 3 150 permettre d’y participer.
4 Le personnel est disponible quand j’en ai besoin. 150
Je peux participer de plusieurs façons à l’organisation de ce 5 150 programme si je le souhaite. Ce programme est accueillant pour les divers groupes qui vivent 6 150 dans la communauté. Depuis que je participe a ce programme, je me suis fait des 150 7 nouveaux amis avec lesquels que je peux voir et vers lesquels me tourner à l’extérieur du programme. Depuis que je participe a ce programme, je connais mieux les 8 150 services et les ressources offerts dans ma communauté. 9 Je recommanderais ce programme à un(e) ami(e). 150 10 Ma participation à ce programme a été globalement bénéfique. 150
Consultation auprès des familles - besoins (printemps 2017)
En avant-midi la semaine 30% En après-midi la semaine 5% En soirée la semaine 21% En avant-midi la fin de semaine 18% En après-midi la fin de semaine 10% Jamais 4% Consultation auprès des organismes
Parmi les défis qu’ils observent :
1) Les enfants manquent des occasions de dépistage développementales
2) Manque de transport pour accéder aux programmes
3) Plus en plus de familles à grands besoins Consultation auprès des directions d’école élémentaire (35)
Parmi les défis qu’ils observent : 1)Enfants avec des besoins particuliers qui n’ont pas de diagnostique / Pas de dépistage préscolaire
2)Les familles vulnérables n’ont souvent pas de moyen de transport 3)Défis remarquables en orthophonie, autorégulation et gestion des émotions Les COPEF dans Prescott et Russell COPEF Rockland • Salle sensorielle • Salle de jeux spécialisé- besoins particulier
COPEF Services mobile Casselman • Écoles Services de base: • Services • Parcs spécialisés • Centres •Dépistage et aiguillage (ergo, ortho, physio) communautaires •Interaction gagnante • Centre •Corde à linge autochtone •Regarde, je grandis •Triple P •Ateliers pour parents (Bébé en santé cerveau en santé, massage pour bébé, etc.) •Joujouthèque COPEF Hawkesbury • Programmation pour familles COPEF Satellite immigrantes, Embrun mères adolescentes Les COPEF dans Prescott et Russell Association des Résidences de Prescott et Russell
Le 15 août 2017
À: Président du Conseil de Prescott et Russell, M. Gary Barton
Membres du Conseil et maires de Prescott et Russell
Directeur des Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, M. Stéphane Parisien
Directrice des Services sociaux et communautaires, Mme. Anne Comtois Lalonde
Sujet : Projet de loi 148
Bonjour à tous,
Comme vous le savez, le projet de loi 148 vise entre-autre à augmenter le salaire minimum en Ontario jusqu’à $15.00 en janvier 2019, en plus d’ajouter des bénéfices d’emploi qui devront en partie être défrayés par l’employeur. L’Association des Résidences ne tient pas à débattre le mérite et bien-fondé du projet de loi 148 car elle croit fermement que tous les employés des résidences privées des Comtés unis méritent sans contredit beaucoup plus que les propriétaires de résidences sont en mesure de leur offrir dans le contexte économique actuel.
Nous aurions aimé être en mesure de faire une présentation au Conseil pour vous faire part de nos préoccupations face au projet de loi 148 mais on nous assure que vous êtes tous déjà bien informé de notre situation. Nous joignons quand-même une copie de la présentation qui explique en détail les effets dévastateurs, autant pour les résidences que pour les résidents, si le projet de loi est adopté sans aucune forme de compensation.
Suite à un sondage effectué auprès de nos membres, nous en sommes arrivés à la conclusion que pour la majorité des résidences à prédominance de clients subventionnés, elles ne seront pas en mesure de survivre financièrement sans une augmentation significative du per diem. Pour ce qui est des résidences de personnes âgées non subventionnées, la situation est aussi sérieuse car l’augmentation de loyer mensuel requise pour compenser en partie les effets du projet de loi est de (1) au deçà de la capacité de payer pour les personnes âgées sur revenus fixes et (2), supérieure à l’augmentation permise par la régie du loyer qui a été fixé à 1.8% pour 2018.
Le Tableau suivant montre les augmentations moyennes requises du per diem, du loyer mensuel et du budget pour le Programme de logement avec soutien, au cours des trois prochaines années, afin de compenser pour les effets du projet de loi 148.
1
Augmentations Moyennes Requises
Année 2017 2018 2019 Total
Per Diem $0.37 $4.62 $1.88 $6.87 Loyer Mensuel $11.40 $140.43 $57.05 $208.89 Budget Annuel pour 450 Clients $61,577 $758,320 $308,096 $1,127,993
Nous aimerions savoir si des démarches ont été entreprises ou bien seront entreprises par les élus et/ou par l’Administration des Comtés Unis pour venir en aide aux propriétaires de résidences ainsi qu’aux résidents eux-mêmes, face à l’adoption possible du projet de loi 148. Votre opinion dans ce sens serait grandement appréciée par nos membres et nos résidents qui sont tous sérieusement concernés.
Nicole Normand
Présidente, Association des Résidences de Prescott et Russell
Pièce jointe : 1
2
Impact of Bill 148 on private Residences in the Prescott and Russell Region
«The purpose of this presentaton is to communicate the devastating impact that Bill 148, if enacted, will have on the economic survival of private Residences, especially those that house and care for mental health clients and low income seniors in the Prescott & Russell Community»
Presented by: The Prescott and Russell Residence Association
August 2017 11 Foreword
The intention of this presentation is not to debate the merit of Bill 148 when it comes to providing decent wages and better working conditions for employees working in our business environment – Private Residences.
If anything, we all recognize that there is a unacceptable disparity of wages and benefits between employees working in Residences operated by the Public sector and those operated by the Private sector. Employees in the Private sector are as dedicated, work as hard and diligently, and for the most part perform the same tasks as those in the Public sector. Yet, in most cases, they do it for half the wages and benefits of those fortunate enough to have found employment in Residences operated by the Public sector.
At least 80% of employees in private residences are at or near the minimum wage level.
The primary reason for lower wages and less benefits in Private sector Residences is not based on greed but in most cases rather based on pure economic survival.
22 Discussion
There are 35 private residences in our region. For at least 12 of them, nearly 100% of their clients are subsidized low income seniors and ODSP recipients. For those residences, their whole revenue is dictated by the per diem rate so therefore, controlled entirely by the government.
At the same time, governments at various levels also sets the majority of operating expenses for all residences , namely: ▪ Minimum wages, UI and CPP – 45% of operating expenses ▪ Hydro rates – 5% of operating expenses ▪ Municipal taxes – 3% of operating expenses ▪ Water and sewage – 2% of operating expenses
This at best only leaves 45% of the remaining operating expenses under the possible influence of residence owners. Furthermore, it does not take into account the multiple sets of rules, regulations, standards and legislated requirements imposed upon residence owners for which there is a cost. Examples include the recent implementation of the sprinkler program and the introduction of the Retirement Home Regulations Act (RHRA).
3 Discussion (continue)
Contrary to popular belief, most private residences operate with a very slim profit margin if any, especially the smaller residences and principally those whose majority of residents are subsidized clients under the Housing with Related Supports program (HWRS).
So when the government decides to increase by 32% the cost of wages and benefits, which represents 45% of the total operating expenses, it imposes a 14% increase on the total cost of operating the business.
For most residences, the additional payroll expense will range between $50,000 and over $150,000 by 2019. No private residence can financially survive such an increase, especially the ones whose main income is derived from housing subsidized clients under the Housing with Support program.
4 Discussion (continue)
Sadly, the situation is not be much better for private senior residences whose clients are primarily non-subsidized residents. For example, in a 50 rooms residence where payroll would increase by about $150,000, it would have to raise the individual monthly rent by $250.00 ▪ First - very few seniors can afford such a steep rent increase ▪ Second - it is unlikely that the Rent Control Board will allow owners to apply such a large increase (set at 1.8% for 2018) ▪ Third - the residence owner will have to absorb the additional payroll expense provided the profit margin can support it but if not, also consider closing its doors
Even in residences that carry very little debt, operate on an already very tight budget and pay minimal management fee, the profit margin is simply not there to absorb such a large increase in operating expenses.
5 Discussion (continue)
As we said in previous presentations, the Housing with Related Supports program is a highly cost effective mean of caring for those who might otherwise find themselves crowding the healthcare system. The average per diem cost in an hospital is more than $1,000 and mostly above $200 in a long- term care facility. In fact, the Housing with Support Program saves hundreds of million of dollars every years for the province and for Ontario taxpayers.
Yet, the current per diem rate is $54.00 or $1,642 per month. It went from $47.75 in April 2009 to $54.00 in July of this year for a total increase of 13% - an average annual increase of only 1.6%.
At the same time, with the introduction of capping, the number of subsidized residents went from 515 to 490 to 460 and now stands at 450 with 50 people on the waiting list - a drop of 13%.
Also at the same time, the average pension income of subsidized residents (ODSP, Old Age and CPP) went up on average by at least 1.5% per year, thus effectively reducing the Counties financial load towards the program by an equal rate.
6 Discussion (continue)
Especially for residences whose primary income is dependent on the per diem rate, the payroll increases contained in Bill 148 will be unsustainable. For these residences, unless the per diem rate is increased proportionally, they will have no choice but to close their doors in the coming months.
This will result in over 75 employees finding themselves out of work as well as more than 200 low income seniors and people suffering from mental health having to: ▪ Move to alternate accommodation if they’re lucky enough to find one, otherwise ▪ Crowd the emergency department of the local hospital, or ▪ Add their name to the endless waiting list for long-term care facility and/or, ▪ Join the number of homeless people in a large urban center who depend on shelters for their day-to-day survival.
7 Discussion (continue)
The following slide shows by how much the per diem will have to increase, based on residences of different sizes and typical payroll expenses, to cover the cost of Bill 148.
Also shown is the additional program funding needed to support different per diem increases, assuming 450 subsidized clients.
Indeed it is a large amount at slightly more than 1% of the total UCPR annual budget, but it might be a small price to pay in comparison to the alternative financial consequences of not taking any action.
8 Discussion (end)
The cost of Bill 148:
Budget Increase Current Cumulative Wage Extra Vacation Emergency Per Diem Increase Residents Total Cost Based on 450 Payroll Increase Into 2019 (10%) Leave Required Clients
10 $50,000 $16,000 $600 $2,400 $19,000 $5.21 $855,000
20 $125,000 $40,000 $1,200 $4,800 $46,000 $6.30 $1,035,000
30 $200,000 $64,000 $1,800 $7,200 $73,000 $6.67 $1,095,000
40 $275,000 $88,000 $2,400 $9,600 $100,000 $6.85 $1,125,000
50 $350,000 $112,000 $3,000 $12,000 $127,000 $6.96 $1,143,000
60 $425,000 $136,000 $3,600 $14,400 $154,000 $7.03 $1,155,000
70 $500,000 $160,000 $4,200 $16,800 $181,000 $7.08 $1,163,571
9 Conclusion
The Housing with Related Supports program under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing plays a critical role in helping the most vulnerable citizen of Ontario: low income seniors and people who suffer from mental health and addiction.
This program is essential if the government is serious about providing affordable housing for everyone and decisive in its efforts to combat homelessness.
The program is a vital component of the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). It is also the primary tool available in the United Counties to fight homelessness in the target population. However, the availability of this reliable partnership as a tool to combat homelessness and to provide affordable housing, is being threatened by the introduction of Bill 148, as it relates to the increase in minimum wage and benefits.
10 Conclusion (continue)
If Bill 148 is enacted without adequate financial compensation for residences under the Housing with Related Support program, it will have devastating consequences for our society in general and for our most vulnerable citizens in particular, notwithstanding for private businesses who care for them and their dedicated employees.
Certainly many residences will have to close resulting in the loss of employment rather than improving wages and benefits for the affected workers.
Similarly, if enacted, Bill 148 will penalize Ontario seniors living in residences by forcing owners to significantly increase rents in order to offset the additional payroll expenses.
11 Conclusion (end)
If the government is sincere about improving the financial situation of low- income earners in Ontario, it could consider lowering the income tax rate for people in the lower income bracket.
Such an initiative would not destroy the ability and willingness of private businesses to continue housing, caring and protecting low income seniors and people who suffer from mental health and addiction. Nor would it force Ontario seniors to absorb exorbitant rent increases on their very limited pension income, something many of them can hardly afford as we speak.
12 A4aijor’s office CASSELMAN Bureau dii maire
Le 15 aoüt, 2017
Comtés Unis Prescott-RusseH 59, rue Court 1 2 AQUl 01 L’Origna, Ontario I KOA1KO L
Attention Stéphane Parisien Membres du Conseil
Messieurs,
Depuis quelques années, piusieurs municipalités de I’Ontario et ailleurs, parlent de projets concernant Ia garde de poules dans nos écoles afin d’enseigner aux étudiants une phase de I’agriculture. Ces projets ont pour but d’enseigner I’élevage de poules afin d’étudier leur production d’ceufs sur le marché; Ia qualité des cufs de poules en Iiberté ou dans des cages.
Etant donné que ce genre d’agricufture peut se faire dans une superficie restreinte et économique, nos élëves apprendront Ia valeur de nos produits de ferme et ouvriront leurs connaissances en matiëre d’alimentation et auss commerciale,
En Europe, aux Etats-Unis, au Canada, dans I’Ouest et au Québec, us permettent aux conseils scolaires de faire des projets pilotes en I’élevage de poules avec un groupe allant de 10 a 25 poules dans des enclos appropriés. Etant donné que ce n’est pas une cufture bruyante, cela permettrait a nos étudiants de découvrir les différentes categories de poules ainsi que Ieurs ufs.
Ce nettoyage de ces mini poulaillers se ferait quotidiennement et le fumier serait mis dans des sacs pour ensuite être utilisé soit, pour le jardin ou pour engrais pour les fleurs. Les élëves apprendralent tout sur I’avicufture en plus de découvrir le potentiel de ce marché.
75 RuaS Jean Cas elrnar,ON KOA1MO Cel 6136204606 Fax 63 76437 9 Les grandes villes telles que Vancouver et Toronto ainsi que 8$ grandes villes permettent actuellement I’élevage de poules en milieu urbain. A Montréal, les poules sont déjà permises depuis 2016, sous divers rëglements, chez les particuliers ainsi que dans des espaces communauta ices.
Un projet pilote a déjà permis de se rapprocher de Ia nature ou simplement d’avoir des ufs frais,
L’école La Seigneurie de Casselman a demandé au Conseil de Casselman de Iui permettre un tel projet pilote. Le Conseil est favorable cependant, le plan directeur doit ëtre change. C’est un coüt trop dispendleux pour I’école sans savoir combien de temps [‘école opérerait avec ce projet.
Je demande au Conseil des Comtés-Unis de considérer ce projet pilote aim de permettre a nos étudiants de se rapprocher de Ia nature et aussi de combler un programme éducatif oü les grands et petits peuvent apprendre plus sur ces animaux de Ia ferme.
Si ncë reme nt,
Conrad Lamadeleine Maire de Casselman
From: Massimo Bergamini
View this email in your browser
To: Mayor and Council Re: AIRPORT PRIVATIZATION
I’m writing to bring to your attention an issue that potentially affects the health and prosperity of all of Canada’s cities and communities: airport privatization.
As you may know, the federal government is currently considering the for-profit- privatization of Canada’s airports.
Other countries that have privatized airports have found that it often leads to higher fees and reduced services for travellers and airlines. This can damage tourism, business travel, and the local economy. Most of all, it makes it more difficult and expensive to maintain essential connections with the rest of the country and the world.
We hope that, with your support and that of your council, we can mobilize municipal and community leaders across Canada to oppose this plan.
To be clear, our current airport governance model is not without problems, and
1 these must be addressed to make our passenger aviation system more competitive and improve the traveller experience. But as long as for-profit airport privatization remains on the table, it will delay effective action needed to solve these problems.
A number of municipal councils across the country have already adopted resolutions opposing for-profit airport privatization, among them Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and the Capital Regional District of Victoria.
We urge you and your council to join them in adopting a resolution opposing the for-profit privatization of airports and calling on the federal government to focus on modernizing the current system to lower costs for travelers and enhance the competitiveness of Canada’s air transport industry.
I have attached for your information a template resolution that your council may want to adapt, a template letter to your local Member of Parliament, as well as a backgrounder on airport privatization and one on Canada’s airline industry.
We believe that successfully stopping this misguided initiative will require a groundswell of opposition. We hope that you will join us in urging the Government of Canada to abandon this plan and focus on the real issues that damage the competitiveness of passenger air transportation in Canada.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at: [email protected].
Yours truly,
Massimo Bergamini President and CEO National Airlines Council of Canada
2
AIRPORT FOR-PROFIT PRIVATIZATION: A CHECKERED TRACK RECORD Airport privatization is not a new idea. Public-private partnerships, and private, for-profit ownership have been introduced for the construction, financing, management and operation of many airports around the world. However, the overall track record of airport for-profit privatization is checkered at best. There are justified grounds for caution, even skepticism, before launching such an initiative in Canada.
Experience shows dangers A major fault-line is that for-profit airports shift their focus away from service to communities and travelers, to concentrate instead on maximizing profits, cutting costs and delivering earnings to shareholders. Global experience has shown this often has negative consequences, such as higher prices and reduced service levels.
Underinvesting in infrastructure and services Some private entities taking over airports have failed to invest sufficiently in maintaining and upgrading airport infrastructure. In Sydney, Australia, for example, the country’s competition watchdog found that the privatized airport increased profits by running down the quality of its services, and showed low responsiveness when public concerns were raised.
Overinvesting in the wrong areas Other privatization experience shows over-investment or “gold-plating” investments in areas that prove costly or unnecessary. In Mumbai, India, the privatized airport undertook construction of a second terminal, for which cost over-runs were passed on to users, without previous consultation.
Dual or hybrid revenue streams that undermine some airport services Some profit-driven airports have sought to maximize revenues and cut costs by separating out their revenues into different streams, known as “dual or hybrid till” systems. These allow them to identify and cut costs and services in activities that produce lower revenues, such as airlinecouncil.ca Page | 1
aeronautical services, while building up those, such as commercial airport concessions, that produce more. Australian airports now collect far more aeronautical revenue per passenger than a decade ago: Brisbane Airport collects 66 percent more in real terms since 2006-07; Perth, 43 percent; and Melbourne, 31 per cent. Sydney’s is up just 16 percent, but its revenue-per-passenger is the country’s highest at $17.27. Price increases by these airports over the decade have resulted in an additional $1.6 billion assessed to airlines and travellers. In cases such as these, where revenue-per-passenger rises markedly, travelers wind up paying higher prices for flight tickets, parking, airport hotel bills, and pre-flight meals, among others.
Higher borrowing costs Analysis shows that lenders are likely to price the financial risk of for-profit airports at higher levels than that of public ones, resulting in interest rate hikes for them. Private ownership of airports means that some cash flows will be diverted from airport operations and reinvestment, to instead pay dividends to shareholders and, possibly, income tax. These pressures, as well as regulations imposed on private owners, results in their showing a weaker credit profile than do public airports which are unconstrained by the need to deliver earnings.
The bottom line: risky and not needed in Canada Governments have most often sought a private-sector role in running airports where the state lacks either financial resources or the required technical or management expertise to run airports. This is not the case in Canada, where following divestiture to not-for-profit local airport authorities in 1994, massive user-funded investments have resulted in airport infrastructure that has been ranked among the best in the world. Our airport governance model, however, does need updating. This should include third-party regulatory oversight of airport spending and fees, and a reduction or elimination of the rents airports pay to the federal government, which takes millions of dollars out of the air transportation system with no benefit to passengers or the system. Keeping for-profit privatization on the table will delay these need changes.
airlinecouncil.ca Page | 2
Template Resolution on Airport Privatization
Whereas in a country as vast and sparsely populated as Canada, safe and efficient air transportation is essential to connecting families and communities and to continued economic prosperity;
Whereas Canada’s airports are vital assets that contribute to the quality of life and economic growth in the cities, communities and regions they serve;
Whereas media reports indicate that the Government of Canada is actively considering selling Canada’s airports to for-profit entities to achieve a one-time financial windfall;
Whereas the international experience in airport privatization has often resulted in higher fees and reduced services for travellers and airlines as a result of efforts to maximize return on investment;
Whereas such outcomes would negatively affect communities of all sizes across Canada by making air travel more expensive and reducing service;
Whereas the last decade has seen a massive increase in the number of Canadians using air travel to connect with loved ones, enjoy well deserved vacations and explore the country, or help create jobs;
Whereas any increase in fees on air travel resulting from the privatization of airports would constitute an unfair tax on Canada’s middle class;
Whereas divestiture of airports to local not-for-profit authorities in 1994, led to massive user-financed investments in airport infrastructure which have given Canada an enviable network of world class airports;
Whereas the physical infrastructure of airports has been modernized, the governance system under which they operate has not kept up with the times and is now in urgent need of repair;
Whereas that situation would only be exacerbated in a privatized for-profit system;
Be it resolved that the municipality of Anytown calls on the Government of Canada to renounce its push for the for-profit privatization of Canada’s airports and clear the way for needed improvements to the current airport governance and financing system; and
Be it further resolved that the municipality of Anytown urge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) bring this matter forward for emergency debate at the next meeting of its National Board of Directors.