HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Michel Samson (Chairman)

Mr. Brooke Taylor

Mr. William Dooks

Mr. Mark Parent

Mr. Howard Epstein

Mr. Charles Parker

Ms. Marilyn More

Mr. Wayne Gaudet

Mr. Harold Theriault

[Mr. Michel Samson was replaced by Mr. Gerald Sampson.]

[Ms. Marilyn Moore was replaced by Ms. Joan Massey.]

IN ATTENDANCE:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

WITNESSES

Halifax International Airport Authority

Ms. Eleanor Humphries, CEO

Mr. Bernie Miller, Chairman of the Board

Mr. Peter Clarke, Vice-President of Operations

Ms. Gina Connell, Director, Communications and Public Affairs

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Michel Samson

MR. MARK PARENT (Chairman): Order, please. We'd like to welcome our guests, Eleanor Humphries and Bernie Miller - and we have other guests here that I don't have written down, so you'll have to introduce yourselves at the start. It's our practice to give you about 10 minutes for opening comments and then we'll turn to the Official Opposition for the first round of questions.

Perhaps, since I only have the two names down, you could introduce yourselves and then start with the opening comments. Before that, we will introduce ourselves.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would introduce yourselves and then making your opening comments, please.

MR. BERNIE MILLER: My name is Bernie Miller, Chairman of the Halifax International Airport Authority.

MR. PETER CLARKE: I'm Peter Clarke, Vice-President of Operations with the Halifax International Airport Authority.

MS. ELEANOR HUMPHRIES: Eleanor Humphries, President and CEO of the Halifax International Airport Authority.

MS. GINA CONNELL: Gina Connell, Director, Communications and Public Affairs for the Airport Authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, you may begin.

MR. MILLER: Members of the committee, on behalf of our board, and staff of more than 11,000 people who are employed directly or indirectly by the airport community, I would like to thank you both for the invitation and the opportunity to be with you today to talk about this important issue.

As you notified us, we understand the focus of this meeting is the airport delays in July, runway reconstruction and its effect on tourism. Peter Clarke, VP of Operations, will provide you with a review of runway reconstruction shortly and will speak about the effects of the delays. Later, our new CEO, Eleanor Humphries, will talk about the go-forward plans for Halifax International Airport, and of course all three of us will be pleased to entertain your questions.

I'm sure you'll recall that when the Airport Authority took over the operation of the airport in 2000, we inherited a facility in desperate need of improvement. Not only was the infrastructure outdated, but it was not coming anywhere close to meeting the capacity needs of the existing population, let alone being able to handle the future growth.

Indeed it has required investments in the range of $100 million just to rehabilitate the terminal building. In the five years since the Airport Authority took over the air terminal, the air terminal building has undergone extensive reconstruction, including new and expanded domestic and international arrivals areas, expanded retail, food and beverage and main lobby facilities, and a new public observation deck.

Work is also underway on a facility to host United States pre-clearance and new jet ridges and gates, as well as an expanded south-end passenger hold room.

While the work on the air terminal building is important, the air terminal building is not the whole airport, it is just a part of it. Equally important, if not more so, is the rehabilitation of the airfield, which includes the runways, the ramps and the taxiways. They too are in urgent need of upgrading.

The Airfield Rehabilitation Program, while less visible to the public, is by far the most vital of the airport's construction projects, as it relates to the continued safe operation of the airport. Beyond its objective of meeting operational safety standards, this work is crucial to ensuring our runways can endure the repetitive and long-term pounding from aircraft taking off and landing.

While this work is very necessary, the difficulty experienced by passengers at our airport over those two weekends in July has been most regrettable. We are very aware of the personal stories - people who missed weddings, reunions, funerals; people whose vacations were shortened due to this situation - and we apologize, and we have apologized, for the

inconvenience the combination of the runway construction and the persistent dense fog has caused.

While all of this has been tremendously difficult for passengers it is important, in assessing this matter, to understand the real role of the Airport Authority. Our role is to provide a safe, secure, efficient and hospitable facility, a facility for airlines to transport their customers into and out of Halifax.

The Airport Authority itself does not transport people, it is the airlines that must do that. When, for any reason, our airport facilities are disrupted - usually through weather or 9/11, hurricanes, White Juan, whatever it might be - the airlines are notified and they are responsible for timely contingency planning, like re-booking passengers and alternate flights, and they determine how they will handle such situations on a flight-by-flight basis.

The Airport Authority itself does not have access to passenger lists, we don't know their itineraries, or their destinations, nor do we have any knowledge of the airlines' plans, for example, aircraft and crew availability, if aircraft are being diverted. The Authority cannot fulfill the airline's contractual obligations to their passengers as represented in their tickets. We do what we can to assist the airlines, but our focus is on the safety and comfort of those passengers stranded in our terminal building during such disruptions.

While we truly regret the disruption that took place, as an airport, we simply cannot and will not compromise when it comes to passenger safety. This runway reconstruction work is vital to maintaining the integrity and operations of the airport's runways that are now reaching the end of their life cycle. We cannot close the airport while we do this work, but must carry it out while continuing to accommodate normal traffic at our facility on a daily basis.

Runways at the Halifax International Airport have not been upgraded since 1987 and these current upgrades are essential to ensure aircraft and passenger safety, to modernize the airfield, to meet international standards, and to continue to receive certification by our regulator, Transport Canada.

I would now like to hand over to Peter Clarke to provide more detail on what happened during those two weekends in early July.

MR. PETER CLARKE: Let me begin by saying that this multi-year project has been in the planning stages for several years and was included in the Halifax International Airport Authority's 2004 public consultation on its long-range master plan.

The airlines operating at the Halifax International Airport were consulted and informed of each phase of the construction project and the restrictions it would place on the airport runways as it moved forward. A presentation was given to the airline consultative

committee on the project in January 2004, and the committee approved the project for the Airport Improvement Fee Funding in March of that same year. The Airport Operators Committee, of which airlines are members, has been briefed monthly since January 2005 about this project.

The phase of construction to be completed in 2005 is multi-faceted. Inset lights in the touchdown zone are being replaced on our main runway, 0624; the centre line lights are being relocated and replaced along the length of this runway; and various portions of this runway are being repaved this year.

This work has a five-month time frame for completion, and the work is done in a complex sequence. Once work began, it was simply not possible to halt construction and re-establish the navigation system on short notice. This would be neither safe nor be certifiable by the Authority's regulator, Transport Canada. Furthermore, due to paving and lighting requirements, the work must be completed in the warm-weather months, leaving no alternative but to begin the work in May and conclude it in October.

On June 27^th, the Authority entered this Summer's most critical phase of construction as work was done at the intersection of the airport's two runways. During this time the airport's instrument landing system on its main runway, which helps pilots land during times of reduced visibility, was not available for use on either runway. Instrument landing systems assist landings in low-visibility situations, with ceilings down to 200 feet for a Category 1 instrument landing system and 100 feet for a Category 2.

The instrument landing system on each runway is a permanently fixed system that guides pilots to a specific location on that runway. On our main runway, that specific location was under construction for this period of time, and therefore the instrument landing system had to be temporarily taken out of service. Construction crews worked as quickly as possible, seven days a week, to finish this part of the project.

Before commencing this project, the Airport Authority consulted with other industry partners besides the airlines, including Transport Canada and Nav Canada. Regular consultation took place with Transport Canada and Nav Canada since October 2004. The Authority sought the approval of Transport Canada, and they have confirmed that the project was conducted in a safe manner and that the successful completion of the project would result in certification. The Authority also sought approval from Nav Canada before proceeding, and airline pilots had been notified at least 48 hours in advance of any airport operational limitations.

As I said, the Authority has been meeting with the airlines since 2004 to ensure that the airlines are well informed of the project and how it will proceed. The airlines understood the impact the construction would have on the runways at the Halifax International Airport,

and therefore the potential for flight delays, diversions or cancellations, should there be long periods of low-visibility conditions.

However, the Airport Authority did not, as the airlines likely did not, anticipate the weather impacts that occurred in early July. The Airport Authority did not warn the public, other stakeholders, government officials or the news media of potential lengthy disruptions. While general updates to stakeholders included information on the runway project, the updates did not include a focus on potential risks. This was not a deliberate decision by HIAA to not inform stakeholders and the public, it is simply a matter that the impacts were not anticipated.

During the first two weeks of July, the runway construction, persistent dense fog and low visibility caused delays, diversions and cancellations of an estimated 185 flights in and out of Halifax, inconveniencing many airline passengers. While construction did play a role in these disruptions, persistent dense fog was the direct cause of the disruptions at the Halifax International Airport. Under normal weather conditions, including average fog levels for the month of July, flight schedules would not have been impacted to any such degree. Weather data collected for this year for those first two weekends in July show low-visibility levels at HIA for up to 13 hours a day, many more hours than the average at the Halifax International Airport over the last 10 years.

They also showed that for four to five hours on both July 1^st and 2^nd, visibility was below Category 2 levels, meaning even with all navigational aids and both runways fully operational, aircraft would not have been able to land during those periods. This type of weather disruption was neither forecasted nor anticipated by the Authority, and therefore consideration was not given to pre-inform the public of this possibility.

As a result of the fog in July, many airlines had to delay, divert or cancel flights into and out of HIA. As I said, a total of 185 flights were impacted over those two weekends. Based on a July average of 150 to 160 flights a day, about 8 per cent of the flights were impacted during the 15-day period. However, during those two weekends in July, sometimes up to 50 per cent of the flights on certain days were impacted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt you, but if you could wrap up very quickly, we have 10-minute opening statements and you're a minute beyond right now. So if you could bring your comments to some conclusion soon.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we were informed we had 15 minutes, so that's why we've prepared a 15-minute . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll give you 15 minutes, Mr. Clarke.

MR. PETER CLARKE: Many people have asked if this construction could not have been completed in some other less disruptive manner. Questions have been raised around the use of temporary ILS systems - instrument landing systems - during the most critical stage of construction, which may have lessened the impact of weather on flights. However, the instrument landing systems consist of a number of different components, including inset light systems, which were the focus of the construction phase.

This part of the instrument landing system is a permanent, fixed navigation system on a runway that cannot be relocated, and there are no portable temporary systems, either to the Authority's knowledge or the knowledge of Transport Canada or Nav Canada, that meet regulatory standards for commercial use. The runway rehabilitation project is being done in the same manner in which airports across Canada and the U.S. undertake this type of construction project. Many other large airports have alternate runways they can use during construction. This is simply not an option at the Halifax International Airport.

[9:15 a.m.]

As the weather impacted flights in early July, HIAA immediately increased communications efforts, the Authority issued media advisories, travel advisories and stakeholder advisories, information was handed out to front-line staff, extra volunteers were brought in and necessities were handed out to stranded passengers. Since that time the Authority has conducted over 160 media interviews and posted frequently-asked questions and answers on the airport's Web site and as a handout in the airport for stranded passengers. Furthermore, the Authority monitors the weather forecasts daily, and posts media and travel advisories as soon as there is potential weather impact on flights. You may have been hearing these throughout July and August on the radio.

The airport has been talking directly with key political, community and airport stakeholders, including tourism leaders. We have met with our Community Consultative Committee, and we've held editorial board meetings and stakeholder briefings. As was strongly recommended in all stakeholder meetings, we have begun a public service announcement campaign, including print and on-line advertising, to better inform the public of the ongoing construction work and the potential for flight impacts due to severe weather conditions.

The Halifax International Airport closely tracks its customer service ratings. The airport was recently recognized with three top-place finishes in a 2004 airport customer satisfaction survey. These surveys are conducted quarterly with HIAA passengers, and the annual results are compiled to determine ranking. Preliminary results from surveys conducted in early August show that the recent disruptions have not impacted the airport's ranking. The ranking of the level of overall customer satisfaction at the Halifax International Airport continues to be on par with previous results.

In terms of tourism impacts, it's important, first, to note that data provided by the Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage indicates that 28 per cent of visitors to the province arrive by air. Of these, a significant number are either visiting family and friends or are business travellers, both of whom tend to be repeat visitors to the airport and to the province.

The total of 185 impacted flights amounted to about 8 per cent of total flights over those two weeks. That said, some delays were as little as 10 minutes, other delays were significantly longer. The Authority continues to meet with airlines to look at ways to lessen the impact of possible disruptions. Some airlines have detailed contingency plans, others are dealing with these disruptions as they occur. The airlines understand the need for construction work, and they are working hard to ensure that their passengers reach their final destinations.

The Authority's number one priority, however, must remain the safety and security of all those who use this community airport. That's the purpose of the runway restoration project. Thank you for your time. I'll put it back to Bernie to address any questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Miller. Often we'll go by speakers, but I assume that because we're in the Chamber we're going to go 10 minutes per caucus. What is the wish of the committee? By caucus, 10 minutes. We'll start with the Official Opposition.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Miller, good morning to you, and welcome to you and the rest of the representatives of the Airport Authority. If you've had the chance to look at the transcript from the last session this committee held dealing with the airport, just last month, you'll know that the focus of our concerns has to do with the events in July, and thank you for speaking to that issue. You'll also know, I think, that many of us have a lot of respect for the Airport Authority. Over the years, we've seen good work done by the Authority after the transfer out of the hands of the federal government took place.

Nonetheless, we do want to focus on those issues that have arisen. Our concern of course flows from the reputation of the province as a desirable tourist destination, there's clear economic impact, there are pressures already on tourism in the province due to the cost of gasoline, the value of the Canadian dollar and so on. So it's important that as many other factors stay put and stay in as good shape as possible. So it's within that context that we want to raise some concerns.

The first thing I wonder is whether you can tell us what the chances are that there might be a repeat of what went on this Summer? I ask that with two focuses, one is a focus on the next five years of construction, and I suppose even the next months of construction

this year, but there are five more years of construction that are likely to take place. I'm wondering to what extent we might look at repeats during that time, and then I want to look at repeats in future years, but I'll come back to that. Can we start with what might be the possibilities during the remainder of this construction year and the ensuing construction years?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Epstein, I think perhaps Peter would probably be best to speak to that. Let me just say, we were at a critical point where we were working on the intersection at the time of the two July weekends, and that would be the most critical time of the entire five-year project. I'll ask Peter to expand on that.

MR. PETER CLARKE: It's important to appreciate that that first couple of weeks in July when we started that intersection portion is really the area of highest risk for us in the whole five years of the project. In the handout we gave you, if you want to turn to Page 2, what you'll see is a drawing of the Halifax airfield and the phase in dark blue that we are doing this year.

Halifax has a somewhat unusual configuration. Like most airports that have two runways, they have runways that are running perpendicular to one another, that gives you four different directions to land in. I think most people know, aircraft like to land and take off into the wind, so by having two perpendicular runways, you create a sort of optimum scenario with that. What's a little unusual with ours is that they actually physically intersect which they don't in all airports, although there are a number of airports where they physically intersect. In those where they physically intersect, they usually do so at the end of the runways.

Unfortunately, ours intersect in the middle of our short runway and what that means is that when we work in that area, the crosswind, or the shorter runway, is totally out of service. The amount of pavement that is left on either side of that is not really suitable for landing and taking off of commercial aircraft, it's just not long enough. What happens with the long runway is we have what's called a displaced threshold which means that it's shortened a bit and that means that the fixed ILS systems can't be used in that period.

So during this time period what we had was a situation where we had no ILS on the main runway and no use of the secondary runway. The only thing that we had was a localizer on the runway, which gave us limits of about 400 feet visibility and one mile. We will never be back in that situation again.

MR. EPSTEIN: That's what I wondered because when I read the background material, the essence of the problem seemed to be that the ILS, instrument landing system, was out of commission and as I read the background material it seemed to suggest that this would not repeat during the five or six years of construction, so is that, in fact, the case?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Let me try to clarify that for you because I think during the five or six year succession we won't have the ILS systems on both runways out at the same time. Since we finished that intersection project the ILS system on the main runway has been out, the Category 2 ILS system, although we still have the localizer approach there. But we've had the full use of 1533, the crosswind runway, and its Category 1 ILS system.

Next year's project works primarily on 1533. By October we will not have completed the paving on the main runway, 0624, but we'll have it back in full operation and have its Category 2 landing system by the end of October operating, and it will operate all next year while we work on 1533.

In 2007, the third year, we'll come back into 0624, the main runway, and we'll finish up with the paving and the replacement of the lights down the last two-thirds of the runway. At that point in time the ILS system will be out on 0624 but once again, we'll have 1533. So the risks are reduced but I don't want to mislead you. With both dense fog and visibility problems and also very strong crosswinds against the runway we're using, we are at risk of having delays and diversions again.

To give you some example, since July 17^th we've brought 1533 back into use. Since that time we have had some problems with very dense fog but we've lost over a six week period, we've had seven aircraft diverted, three cancelled and seven delayed in that time period, over six weeks, compared to the 185 in the two weeks of that. But, of course, we haven't had weather like we had on the first two weekends of July either, that was really a tremendous weather event for us.

MR. EPSTEIN: It was and I think to some extent, as we're considering this, we're trying to keep the fog issue separate from the construction issue and focus a bit on the construction side of it. Again, looking at the construction side of it, what I hear is that you tend to think that there's likely to be minimal disruption deriving from the construction itself, over the remainder of the project, is that a fair statement?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Yes, I think we're significantly less at risk for the impact of low visibility.

MR. EPSTEIN: Now, here's what I wonder, in your literature you describe what goes on at some other airports. One of the things that you do point out is that in some other airports there are other runways. Here we have two and as you point out they, in a rather unusual fashion, cut or touch each other in the middle. But we don't have a third or fourth runway. Is it any part of the planned construction to have a third runway that wouldn't be affected, that would always be there and wouldn't be affected by construction, in the way we've seen these two affected?

MR. PETER CLARKE: It would be nice to have it, but no, it's not part of our planning. When we did our master plan back in 2003-04, we had looked forward at the idea of a third runway and where it might be on the airport and that sort of thing. We looked at forecasts, demands and the capacity to the existing system, and that sort of thing. The conclusion was - it was done by consultants - that it would be beyond the sort of horizon of the plan, which was a 20-year plan, when we would need a third runway to meet the capacity needs.

For capacity there's no need for a runway in the next 20 to 25 years, probably well beyond that. To bring it in as an aid for construction once every 20 years, they're very expensive. Vancouver built one in 1996, it cost them $120 million in construction costs, so it's a pretty expensive venture and if you don't need it for capacity we probably wouldn't be pursuing it.

MR. EPSTEIN: I wasn't suggesting it simply be built as a backup, I was wondering if it was in the plans anyway. So this is demand-driven, you don't foresee the necessity for that. I take it you will be monitoring your demand and revising it on a more frequent basis than every 20 years?

MR. PETER CLARKE: The master plan is reviewed every five years and we'll be updating what demands are on the system and what capacity we have, so we'll be looking at it again in five years.

MR. EPSTEIN: Do you have the land if it turns out that the demand is there? Do you have the land to build another landing strip?

MR. PETER CLARKE: No, we don't have the land where it would most likely go. We have taken a look at where it would most likely go and the land belongs to the HRM, it's part of Aerotech Industrial Park. We have talked to the HRM about this, they even have some drawings that show where that would be and we have an understanding with them that they will protect that against development that would see that land being unavailable in say, 30 or 40 years.

MR. EPSTEIN: In that case, that raises an interesting additional point. Have you had, as an Authority, some input into the new regional master plan that is going on with the HRM, so that it will be nailed down that indeed this will show up on a planning map?

MR. PETER CLARKE: I'm not sure exactly whether it will show up on a planning map. We have certainly had the opportunity to make that case to them and we've also provided to them a series of information about the noise forecasts that will be in the area 20 years down the road, so they can make decisions about the type of development that's there. Residential development is not suitable in close vicinity to the airports because of the noise

factor, so we provided all that information to them. They seemed to quite understand it and be sympathetic to it, but I'm not exactly sure what will be coming out of the plan.

MR. EPSTEIN: As a former municipal councillor in the HRM, I have to say, get it in writing. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will now move to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Clare.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Bernie Miller and his people for the presentation this morning. I think everyone recognizes the Halifax airport as a vital link to Nova Scotia. It certainly plays an important role in our tourism industry here in Nova Scotia, as well.

[9:30 a.m.]

I want to focus a little bit on the major public relations nightmare in a minute, but I think, for the record, we certainly do acknowledge and recognize this upgrade was needed, as was indicated. No work had been carried out since 1987 on these runways. No one will argue that safety should be put first. But basically hearing what we've heard through the media, I'm just curious, had the Authority realized the problems this upgrading could cause before it started? I'm just curious, did the Airport Authority have a plan in case something did happen? I would like to start off, was there a plan in place? Of course we recognize the construction was going to go forward, it had been approved the year previous. I'm just curious, in terms of in case something went wrong.

MR. PETER CLARKE: The planning is quite extensive for a project like this. The Airport Authority doesn't do the planning on its own. We hire professional consultants who are experienced in this field. In this case the design consultant was SGE Acres, which is a very experienced company throughout North America. They've done runway rehabilitation work, reconstruction work at airports across Canada and throughout the world. They're very familiar with this. They were on the site for a year before, doing surveys and doing studies and looking at this.

The actual scheduling of the project is driven by the fact that to get this work done takes five months in the Summer, and that we needed the full five months in order to get the main runway, with the relocated centre-line lights and relocated touchdown lights, one of the requirements of this project - there's a little complication. A lot of airfield rehabilitation doesn't necessarily relocate the centre-line and touchdown lights. We had to do that because of the position they were in and some changing things.

It was driven, really, by the five months. You have five months, you really have to start in May and finish in October, if you want to have your Category 2 landing system. It'll take us right through to October to get the Category 2 landing system. If you want to have that back for Winter, and the Winter storms, and we certainly wanted that to be in place for the Winter, you're going to need the full five months.

So when you realize you're going to be working on this runway over the five-month period, it's really hard to avoid busy times. June, July and August are Summer holidays, they are busy times at the airport as they are busy times throughout the province, in the travel industry. That's really what drove the project, trying to get it done in the five months and trying to get it back up.

They did examine runway usage, they did talk to Nav Canada about weather and visibility. What we find in the statistics for weather is that while there are slight differences from May to September, the differences aren't really that significant. Over a 10-year period, there may be a few percentage points, five or six percentage points, between the four or five months in the Summer, and that's really not predictive of what's going to happen. I think what the visibility statistics and fog statistics show is that you do have fog in the Summer here, you do have fog in the Winter, and you're likely to have fog at any particular time.

What is really unusual is this 13 to 15 hours a day that occurred on July 1^st, 2^nd and 10^th, extending throughout the day. Our experience with the fog is we usually get fog at this time of the year and we usually get it overnight into early morning. As the sun comes up it tends to burn off, and we go. But we did expect that there would be some impacts, but more along the lines of the impacts that we saw over the last six weeks than the first two weeks in July.

That's how the planning was done. It was discussed at length with Transport Canada, who are the regulators and are experienced in this area right across the country. They are a national organization, as is Nav Canada. Nav Canada owns and maintains the instrument landing system components, the non-lighting instrument landing component system, so they were an important player in this. They were a participant in the design and scheduling of this. Plus, of course, the airlines were included all along. So it's a whole process that puts it together. But to tell you the truth, there's not that much flexibility when you need five months to do a project and it has to be done in a certain order.

MR. GAUDET: Is the project on schedule?

MR. PETER CLARKE: The project is on schedule. We actually got out of the intersection a little quicker than we had anticipated, and I think there was a lot of pressure on us to do that. So we're pretty happy to do it. We expect that by the end of October, we will have this section of the project completed. We will have our Category 2 instrument

landing system up and running and ready for Winter. So I'll have to see how the weather goes and how the project goes from here on.

MR. GAUDET: You've indicated that you were in contact with Transport Canada. I'm just wondering, were you in contact with different stakeholders, for example, our provincial Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage and other stakeholders before the upgrading started?

MR. PETER CLARKE: We have regular consultations with the provincial government and with their officials. We do quarterly briefings with them on activities that are going on at the airport. We did, in one of those briefings in February 2005, address this project but, as I said earlier in my presentation, we didn't focus on the risks that were inherent because we did not really anticipate these kind of consequences. So we talked more about showing them this diagram, showing them what we were doing and what would happen. We didn't sort of alert them to any particular impending disaster, the kind of disaster that we experienced ultimately in the first two weeks in July.

MR. GAUDET: I think for the authority, after day three, day four, and seeing this major public relations nightmare that was developing, could you indicate whether or not you were contacted by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage with an offer of assistance as a result of the negative publicity that was happening to you and to our province over those two difficult weeks?

MR. PETER CLARKE: I know that the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, which runs an information desk at the airport and runs our information service there on our behalf, sent out additional personnel in order to help those passengers who were stranded there, to help them find accommodations, to help them find alternate means of transportation and that was very useful and very helpful. As has been famously reported, I wasn't here at the time so I don't know if anybody else has anything to add to that.

MR. MILLER: To my knowledge, I don't believe there were those kinds of offers made but then one would not expect those kinds of offers. In an irregular operation at an airport, normally it's the airport authority and the airlines that deal with it and injecting further players - unless there is a clear, defined role in the process - would tend to be probably more disruptive than helpful. So I'm not aware that there was an offer made and had there been an offer made, I suspect that it probably wouldn't have been useful.

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Miller, in your opening comments, you've indicated that the authority had apologized to the passengers that were impacted. A few weeks ago in this committee, our Deputy Minister of Tourism, Culture and Heritage indicated that the province wanted to contact passengers who were stranded or delayed at the airport over those few weeks, to apologize for inconvenience they encountered at the Halifax Airport. I'm just curious, has the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage been in contact with the

airport authority to seek a list of passengers or information in terms of enabling them to contact these individuals?

MR. MILLER: There had been some discussions with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage but there was no request because we simply, as I said in my comments, as an airport, anybody who comes into our facility is a guest in our facility but their commercial relationship is a customer of the airlines. The airlines guard that information very jealously, particularly when they are competing with each other. So we don't have the names of the passengers, where they are going, what their itineraries are, how much they paid, or any ability to influence that. That's strictly the airlines.

MR. PETER CLARKE: We've discussed that with Tourism, Culture and Heritage. I know they've discussed that with me but I think it was their intention to contact the airlines about getting that information because we simply don't have it.

MR. GAUDET: On August 23^rd, ATV reported nearly 1,500 inconvenienced passengers had contacted the airport since the July 1^st weekend. If 1,500 passengers took the time to contact the Halifax airport, is it fair to estimate that only a small fraction had contacted the airport?

MR. MILLER: Of course.

MR. GAUDET: Of course. So do we know how many passengers were affected, roughly?

MR. MILLER: Yes.

MR. GAUDET: Do we have a ballpark figure?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Yes, we would have to estimate it but 185 aircraft is what our estimate is. Now, those would be a mix of aircraft. We are not sure. We are looking at Dash 8s up to 767s. We would use, as an average, about 90 people an aircraft which - I did some calculations back here.

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Clarke, the fact that the Halifax airport has received 1,500 complaints, is that on par with your past customer satisfaction? I'm just curious.

MR. PETER CLARKE: That would be very high for that time period.

MR. GAUDET: So what would be the average numbers?

MR. PETER CLARKE: We receive a few dozen letters, e-mails, a week, some of which are complimentary, some of which are complaints about a particular level of service, some of which are addressed to our operations, a lot of which are addressed to the airline operations and that sort of thing so that would be normal, a few dozen a week. But when you do get delays, when you do get weather things, you hear a lot more from customers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Time for the Liberal caucus has expired. We will move to the member for the beautiful Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, thanks to our guests for coming in this morning. I guess I would like to repeat, perhaps, what I said at the earlier hearing here at the Legislature, that I firmly believe that the Halifax International Airport Authority not only handled that situation with professionalism and excellence, but they did it in a very dedicated fashion and the history of the Airport Authority, I believe, is something that this province can be extremely proud of. I think at the committee level, certainly from the PC perspective, we do not want to hurt the reputation of our airport or impact our long-term tourism in the process.

I think it's important to note that many vocations, because of the weather, this Spring and early Summer, have been negatively impacted. Many people in the farming community have told me that they were some three weeks behind because of the wet weather and fog and things of that nature. Now construction is a difficult issue in Nova Scotia. There are a lot of challenges that we all face relative to construction but irrespective, I think that the scheduling and the notifications and the communication that was sent out by the Airport Authority was appropriate. Subsequently, the Authority has indicated that they have plans to perhaps improve communication, and there are a number of steps and some of them are quite detailed.

I just want to comment that I certainly feel that while for a time it seemed to be fashionable and sexy for different people and perhaps even some media outlets to slam the HIAA, perhaps they maybe want to go back in time and look at how that facility functioned under the federal governments of the particular day. It's easy to sit here and criticize but when the airport was run by the federal government, there were a number of issues that perhaps weren't so openly vented and communicated to the public. So I think we've made a lot of progress.

I'm just commenting, Mr. Chairman, that I am impressed every time I go to the airport. I know tomorrow you have a big function at the airport where you are naming a terminal after a great Nova Scotian, Robert Stanfield. Again, it certainly sends a signal to Nova Scotia that this airport is a very important component of what makes this province great.

Could you tell us, perhaps, how the latest energy crisis is impacting the Halifax International Airport, in a general sense?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Well, of course, like every industry, we are highly affected by the cost of hydrocarbons and fuels. Not only are we a consumer ourselves of electricity and of diesel fuel for our vehicles and fuel for our boilers and that sort of thing, but it's very important to the industry, they are reliant. It's a big cost to airlines, probably about 25 per cent or 30 per cent of their total cost. What we've seen recently is, as you know, the airlines have added surcharges on to ticket prices, they vary from $5 to $15 depending on the length of the flight and the destination that's involved, in order to accommodate the additional cost of fuel for the airlines.

[9:45 a.m.]

Every time a ticket gets a little more expensive, and that certainly makes it a little more expensive, it tends to discourage demand a bit, so I think that's something that we're dealing with in our industry, as people are dealing with it in a lot of industries.

MR. TAYLOR: What is the most recent airline service that has connected with the province and what are - if you can disclose here - some potential future airlines that may want to engage the Halifax International Airport?

MR. PETER CLARKE: We've done particularly well this Summer with European service extending some charter service with Thomas Cook going into Ireland and Scotland. They are going to try to extend the U.K. service all year long for one flight a week. Our international traffic is having some difficulty because of the additional capacity that's on that.

On the domestic side we've actually dropped significantly in capacity, mostly because of the removal from the game of Jetsgo back in March. Jetsgo was a very aggressive price competitor and it kept the prices down in general. Prices have risen significantly since Jetsgo left the market and as a consequence, I think that has depressed demand on the domestic scene, but international transport are going very well.

MR. TAYLOR: Have you noticed any additional business or perhaps challenges relative to Hurricane Katrina?

MR. PETER CLARKE: We track these pretty closely. We've had a number heading our way in the last couple of weeks, two of them in particular, and both had diverted off, so we keep an eye on it. They seem to be forming every three or four days and heading up the coast. If we do get a hurricane that will obviously give us - much like Juan - another three or four days of non-operation and that will have a pretty adverse effect on travellers to and from this region, for obvious reasons there and probably on our own bottom line and on the

airline's financial success in this market. We're hopeful that this year they track off, as they have been so far.

MR. TAYLOR: Has Katrina meant any delays, cancellations or additional challenges to the airport?

MR. PETER CLARKE: I think when it was up in southern Ontario we experienced some weather delays out of Toronto and the Ottawa area. You know, these kinds of delays are a regular feature of life in the aviation industry. We have experienced delays not only for our own weather conditions this Summer, but there has been terrible weather down in Boston and Newark, a lot of fog like we've had as well, a very bad year for down there. Of course in Toronto all Summer long they had thunder storms and lightning strikes that kept that airport closed, and that culminated in the crash of Air France. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries there but as a result of that there were repercussions throughout the system for several days. When other airports have weather we also experience delays and cancellations at Halifax, and a good number of our problems in Halifax this year have been associated with activities elsewhere.

Of course, there's the usual amount associated with crew availability, mechanical problems with planes and that sort of thing. So it's a regular feature of life, unfortunately, in the aviation business that there are going to be delays and cancellations.

MR. TAYLOR: There were a few glitches or snags regarding the air show last year, relative to traffic and things of that nature. I know driving through the Old Guysborough Road late last evening there was a number of employees putting up signs. I'm wondering if we can say at this point that we don't anticipate that we will experience some of those delays with traffic because people in the vicinity of Goffs and Oldham - some of those communities mind you are very supportive of the air show - but there were some who had some delays. In fact, there was a medical concern that had to be addressed last time and it did work itself out, but I'm just hoping . . .

MR. PETER CLARKE: Those delays last year were associated primarily with the American Blue Angels, the F18 aerobatic team. They're a fairly big aircraft and there's a safety air box that has to be established for aerobatic teams. That required the shutdown of Oldham Road, part of Guysborough Road and I believe even the golf course that's associated there. They won't be here this year. Nobody who has that big an impact and that big a box will be there this year, so there's no shutdown of those roads this year or of any of the associated recreational facilities around there. I'm hoping that we'll get by without that kind of delay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to say something, Mr. Miller?

MR. MILLER: I was just going to add that last year, of course, was the first year that the show had been held at Halifax International, previously it had been held at Shearwater. There was a huge learning curve necessary and I think a great deal was learned. We're confident that the lessons learned last year will be put to good use this year to avoid any such delay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll now be able to lengthen out after the initial round to 15 minutes.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. EPSTEIN: So far we've been discussing the runways but as I read the schedule it looks as if that work will be done by the end of the 2007 season. In 2008, it looks as if the nature of the work will then focus on the area in front of the main passenger terminal itself. In 2009, it looks as if the work is going to be done on the roadway in front of the various commercial facilities. What I'm wondering is, what the implications are in 2008 for passengers and their luggage. Does that mean that the planes are going to be able to land and taxi a little bit but then people aren't going to be able to get to the terminal? I'm sure that can't be right. Please tell us what goes on.

MR. PETER CLARKE: You're quite right, after 2007 the construction focuses on taxiways and apron, and that's less disruptive for the airport. The taxiways are really the roadways for the aircraft to get to the runways where they take off and land and the runways are the really critical piece of infrastructure here. We have a series of taxiways which gives us optional routes into the apron and into the air terminal building, so that by working on one taxiway at a time we will still maintain alternate access to various parts of the airfield for taxiing aircraft.

On the apron it's a simpler job in the sense that it's mostly just paving, there are no inset lights, centre line lights. Those lights in the runways have tolerances of about 1 per cent, 1.2 millimetres it has to be off, it's a very delicate job and it takes up a lot of time, they're about 2-feet deep, they have to be inserted into the pavement. So when we get on the apron it will be strictly more of a milling and paving kind of job, we can do small sections at a time.

While there may be a little congestion, a little traffic jam here and there, it will mean maybe some ground delays of a few minutes here or there, but we don't anticipate serious problems there at all.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm concerned now just to go back again to what occurred this Summer, and I'll read to you from the written material you gave us today. It says, "As flights are impacted by any type of weather system that may cause a disruption, it is the decision of the airlines to divert, delay or cancel flights and to make alternate arrangements for

passengers who are impacted by these disruptions." What this seems to be suggesting is that it's up to the airlines themselves to take care of passengers and to deal with them. What role, if any, does the Authority have to deal with passengers who are delayed, stuck, do you have any role at all? What role, in your view, does the province or any of its agencies, be it Tourism, Transportation and Public Works, or any of the others that you deal with in the airline consultative committee?

MR. MILLER: What I was trying to suggest earlier certainly is not that we have no role to play but the role of transportation into and out of Halifax to destinations is the airline's role. Anybody who comes in our terminal is, as I say, a guest in our airport and we have a responsibility to ensure that they're safe, they're secure, that it's an efficient operation, that it's hospitable, and that if there's a disruption, that anybody who is affected by airline delays in our terminal is made as comfortable as possible.

Now we have a core of volunteers, the tartan vest volunteers - I'm sure everybody has seen them out there - who, in a situation like that, would go around the terminal looking for people who need baby formula, blankets, those sorts of things. We do a great deal of that but unfortunately, that's not what the people want. The person who wants to go to Montreal wants to go to Montreal. Yes, it's nice that we help out with some amenities while they are there. Our role, I keep re-emphasizing, is one of providing the facility, the transportation is done by the airlines and when the facility is disrupted, then we liaise with the airlines. The airlines know that's part of being in an airport and it is their responsibility to do the contingency planning for their customers.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, the airlines do the planning for any ongoing travel, I understand that that's not your responsibility. Your focus is on stranded passengers, as you say, as guests, what exactly does that mean in practice? Is there a place where they can sleep, are there cots? Is there bedding? Where is it? How much do you have? What about food? Are some of the restaurant facilities there on a contingency plan that means they will be open for extended hours, if necessary? Can you give us some more feel about how you actually deal with these stranded passengers who you called guests? I think they are our guests, not by their choice but if it happens, what do you have in place?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Well, that's exactly the kind of thing that we do, the kinds of things that you named there. It's interesting, I've been talking to most of our airlines about contingency plans as we move forward with this and what they are doing and they have highlighted the things that they want to see, particularly in the case of diversions. They say that if we have to divert and we come back later on with the aircraft or bring people back by bus, they want to make sure that our facility is fully up and running, that we do have our concessions open, that there is food and beverage service available.

What we have is a supply of emergency products, materials, for use by passengers. We do have blankets. We don't have cots but we do have blankets for people. There is lots of seating in the terminal building and we have a supply of things like games and comic books for kids. We have cards for adults. We have bottled water which we hand out. We have $10 telephone calling cards for people who are stuck and maybe there are meeters and greeters in another airport who they can call. There are instructions to our duty managers and to our volunteers to help out even financially where somebody needs it. We have a lot of supplies for babies and children. We have formula, we have baby food, we have diapers for people who maybe weren't planning to be spending that much time and don't have those supplies with them.

We have been through a number of these events where people have been stuck in the building for long periods of time, starting with September 11^th, going on through White Juan and Juan. So we have learned quite a bit about the needs of passengers while they are in the building. That's essentially what we do. We try to provide things for their comfort and make sure that they have everything they need.

Passengers, by and large, stay in the building because they want to get out as quickly as possible. They feel if they leave and go back to their hotels or something, that they may miss out on the flight. Remember, flights that are delayed because of fog, fog is a pretty tricky thing. It's there one minute and gone the next, so people are always optimistic that within the next hour or two they are going to get out. Sometimes they are disappointed in that optimism, sometimes they are rewarded for it, but that's what they want to do. They want to stay there and we will try to keep them as comfortable as possible.

What the airlines have said to us is just make sure that everything is running properly, that you have the personnel there to handle ground transportation, that your concessions are open, that all of your services are full and running, your volunteers are there and stuff like that.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thanks. I will pass to my colleagues, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

MS. JOAN MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sort of go down the road of communication and how it works along with tourism in Nova Scotia, as far as the HIAA communicating with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage. I find it a bit ironic that the HIAA was one of the three organizations to have signed on first as members of Nova Scotia's Come To Life campaign charter. They actually pledged to promote Nova Scotia and its attributes whenever they do business. That was going to happen through various means such as communications.

[10:00 a.m.]

I think that throughout this whole exercise in meeting with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage previous to this meeting, we've seen that the communication either wasn't there or it was there and it broke down. I think this is the crux of the problem, whether it was through fog or it might have been something else that caused that whole situation, the communication, I don't think, was set up properly.

Certainly, you know, the airport should be recognized for all the wonderful things they have done and they have received numerous awards that do recognize that, so I'm not trying to put the blame on them. Rather, I'm trying to find out how we can ask questions so that in the future these things don't occur or things happen more smoothly so that passengers and families who come to visit here, whether it's business or coming to visit their family, are not impacted the way that we think they were. Certainly, some of the comments that the honourable member - not opposite but down the line here - has said, that this is some sort of a PR play for the rest of us and that we are just here to lambaste you and get some play out of it because it's a sexy kind of issue; not true. We are here to do our jobs and that's what I was elected to do, so I do take a little bit of offence with some of those comments.

What I would like to go on with is that our NDP caucus did put forward a freedom of information request on August 8, 2005, and we were looking for all or any correspondence from the Halifax International Airport Authority from the dates of January 1, 2005, to August 8, 2005, which would concern anything from construction repair, maintenance of the runways in Halifax, including but not limited to any and all references to potential disruption of service, contingency plans, communication plans and the impact that that would have on tourism.

On Wednesday, September 7^th, we received a response and in their little package, which I have here in my hand, which is not very thick, there were two meeting agendas between the HIAA and the Nova Scotia Government officials. One was dated February 17^th and one June 16^th. The February 17^th agenda has one of eight discussion items on runway rehabilitation. The June 16^th agenda item has no specific references to any discussion on the topic. All the other items contained in the FOI response were only e-mails forwarded from one Tourism staffer to another Tourism staffer, cutting and pasting the HIAA press releases about the disruptions beginning on July 7^th.

So there appears to be have been absolutely no exchange of correspondence between the HIAA and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage for the entire period leading up to and during the few weeks beyond the worst of these disruptions. This, of course, leads to a number of questions. I will apologize if I may ask the same questions that I asked when the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage was here but it's all mingling into one, as we can all see.

One of the questions is, I guess, why was there not more interaction between the two entities in anticipation of these disruptions? Why was there no contingency plan talked about, or worst-case scenarios? So I will open my questioning up with that question. I know when two of the gentlemen opposite were in to our caucus and talked to us, they did mention and I believe what I heard is that perhaps there were no worst-case scenarios put forward by the company that was hired to do the long-term planning. So if you can sort of elaborate for the public what happened behind the scenes as far as communications, because it looks like there was no communication.

MR. PETER CLARKE: I think you're right in the sense that what we have said in our statement was that because we didn't anticipate the degree of extended dense fog that we got, we didn't expect these kinds of impacts, we didn't put a warning out to any of our stakeholders, including the provincial government. We do meet formally on a regular basis, quarterly, with the provincial officials, as I said, talk to them. We have a nominators' meeting every year and, of course, an annual general meeting. All of these things took place. That's the formal sort of area of consultation and that's what you've got the agendas for and that's the thing.

There is informal contact continually between the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, but primarily with our marketing department. They work together in sort of bringing people who are coming to Nova Scotia for familiarization trips; tour operators and travel agencies, they work together with airlines, so they're meeting on a fairly regular basis. They would be talking about the business of generating capacity and generating awareness in certain markets of Halifax as a tourist destination, they wouldn't be talking about these kinds of things.

So I think you're right, I think we acknowledged that probably the thing we've learned the most from - and certainly the thing we've gotten back from talking to not only Tourism and other provincial departments - all of our stakeholder groups is, they really believe strongly that we should be very proactive in going out in advance of construction projects where there's any risk to the operation and identifying this to the public and to the community groups in advance. If there's a lesson to be learned in this particular series of events, I think that's the lesson that we're taking away from it. I think that we have shown how we've changed in terms of our public service ads and in terms of our updates on our Web site and that sort of thing and a pledge to make sure that this happens as we go forward into the future with any number of construction projects.

MS. MASSEY: Isn't it true that, in fact, you did not have government representation on the board because the person who would have been there was on leave of absence, because he had actually put his name forward to be a candidate for president of the HIAA, so there was nobody there to communicate for the government on your behalf at those meetings - Paul Gurr, President of Olands. My question is - and I suppose it's not fair to ask you - why did the province not replace him temporarily to say the very least, when we knew

we were going through this huge construction phase, the biggest thing to happen to the airport in a long time? It just leaves the public wondering who is there protecting them, they elected the government to protect them and look after their interests and according to my information, there was nobody there to do that. When you say that you meet quarterly, he wasn't there, there was nobody there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time is finished but we'll allow a response to this question.

MR. MILLER: I have a hearing disability so I'm not sure I heard that exactly right but let me try to put the question back and make sure I'm answering the right question. Was the question, what was the role of the provincial nominee on our board and was he absent?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was the question. Was his absence a factor in proper information flow between the Department of Tourism and Public Works and the HIAA?

MR. MILLER: Well, if I could address the role of board members, board members are nominated by various nominators, one of whom is the provincial government, the Chamber of Commerce, the federal government and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, could you be very quick on this because I need to move to the Liberal caucus.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Gurr was on a leave of absence during that time. He would not normally be the conduit between the provincial government and the board in terms of the planning of an operation like this. We do that through the meetings that Mr. Clarke referred to, the quarterly meetings that we have with deputy ministers and other officials on a regular basis, and that's when those kinds of details are provided.

A board member has a fiduciary responsibility to the organization and I think the province understands, as do all the nominators, that when they nominate a person to the board, the person's loyalty is to the entity on which they govern. It's not expected Mr. Gurr - certainly we don't on the board expect, other than a routine discussion with the province - would engage in detailed discussions about projects that are upcoming at the airport.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. We will now move to the Liberal caucus, you have 15 minutes.

The honourable member for Clare.

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I won't use my 15 minutes so I'll ask my colleagues to continue. I want to return to where I left off.

We were talking about customer satisfaction. We heard normally the Airport Authority receives approximately 14 complaints in the run of a year. We heard that between July 1^st and August 23^rd, the Airport Authority had received 1,500 complaints. My first question would simply be, what were these complaints about?

MR. PETER CLARKE: These complaints were about the disruptions in service. First of all, just to go back, we received a dozen or 15 complaints over a month not over a year, so it would be a little higher than that - it's just an estimate on my part, I really don't have any data. I could certainly get that data, it may be a little higher than that.

The complaints were about the disruptions to the service that arose in July over that two-week period, where so many passengers experienced either a delay, cancellation, or a diversion of their flight. Basically, there was a number of really excellent questions being asked by these customers, questions that I think were germane to their assessment of the situation. But they weren't getting the answers through the media coverage and the reaction at the time, because the answers to the questions are a little complicated.

What we've handed out to you attaches with it a frequently asked question and answer session. Those questions are based on essentially the basic questions that the passengers and our customers were asking us. The first question was basically, is this a really important project? What are you doing out there? Did you just run out on the long weekend and start to fill in some potholes and not tell anybody? I think it's important for customers to know that this is a major important safety project that has been well planned and going over the five-year period. That's sort of the first question they asked.

The second question is, couldn't you have done it in a different way? Couldn't you have avoided the July long weekend? I think there's a lengthy explanation, it's not an explanation you can get out in a 15-second sound bite, or that can be easily answered in terms of a newspaper interview, to explain to them how the project was designed, how we needed the whole five months of the Summer, how we couldn't really avoid the July 1^st weekend and that sort of thing, and to explain that really, it's very difficult to know if there's going to be a worst-case scenario experience, at what time that worst-case scenario is going to occur.

Some other questions were because it was reported widely in the press and in some letters that were circulated that there was somehow some secret portable ILS system that we could have used, that we failed to get, there were a lot of questions about that, that at Toronto they've a piece of equipment that allowed them to do that. That piece of equipment, when we talked to Toronto, turned out to be a localizer. Of course, our localizer was in use the whole time and providing us with a 400-foot approach, down from the 1,000 foot you would normally get. Doesn't the military have these instrument landing systems? We weren't aware of that, but we pursued those questions with Transport Canada and Nav Canada, both experts in this field, both international things. I've talked to many airports and a number of people

in the aviation industry across the country and nobody is aware of anything. I've talked to the armed forces and these just seem to be urban myths that something exist out there and we certainly weren't able to find it.

Those are the kinds of questions we asked, there was a number of other ones as well but I won't take up more of your time by going through them.

MR. GAUDET: I'm to assume that these 1,500 complaints were only seeking information, or were they basically asking for something?

MR. PETER CLARKE: There were some who were seeking compensation, yes.

MR. GAUDET: I'll finish off, before I pass over the rest of my time to my colleague here. Throughout this whole experience I'm just curious, with the Airport Authority, looking back would you have done it differently, have you learned something through this project?

MR. MILLER: Certainly, that's the first question our board asked and maybe you could add something.

MR. PETER CLARKE: I think it's fair to say that we learned something, particularly about the communication in advance. The problem with airports is that they're 24/7, 365-days-a-year, you can't go in on the weekend when it's closed down and do some work on it. Whenever you want to do some reconstruction, rehabilitation, or expansion work on an airport, the only option you have is really to limit its operational serviceability, to put limits on it. If you want to replace a few loading bridges, well then you have a few less loading bridges to use while you're doing that. If you want to work on a runway you're going to limit its usability and that's what happened here and this is a common problem at airports.

[10:15 a.m.]

What we realize now is that just about any construction project we undertake runs the risk of some kind of operational impact. We have construction going on in the terminal building now where we know we're going to have fire alarms because people are working on the fire alarm system and tradesmen are going to cut wires and do that sort of thing. We know we're going to have roof leaks because there are temporary roofs up and stuff like that. All of these things result in impacts on the operation. They may result in temporary closures to the building for half an hour, something like that, or the use of facilities.

So it has become clear to us now that people want to know in advance when we're doing construction and what the risks are. As I said earlier, I think that has been the thing that we're carrying away from this, most importantly, that that's what people want to hear, they want advance notice of what's going on, and maybe some kind of an assessment of what kind of impacts that might cause.

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I'll pass the rest of my time to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be as concise as I can with my question, and I'll ask the panel to be concise with their answer, as I, too, would like to have my colleague, Mr. Theriault, ask a question that is important to him. I'll begin by complimenting you on having 11,000 employees, which you stated in your opening statement, and running it as a business. If I were one of those 11,000 employees, I would, possibly, after the problems that you experienced, fear for my job or for cutbacks because of the lack of business. It is a giant business out there. I again compliment you on working towards U.S. pre-clearance, that's a real plus, and the upgrading of the safety equipment that has to go on.

But business being what it is, competition is a reality in any business, and it appears that because of the lack of anticipation - to use your own words - the impact was not anticipated. This construction was done by consultants. There always seems to be a Plan B or a worst-case scenario put into the mix, if something goes wrong. It appears that by not anticipating that you literally opened the door and allowed external competitors a free pass to capture your business during this period, and the possibility of maybe losing it. I'd like to just show you the Halifax Herald, Thursday, July 14^th, you're familiar with how Moncton capitalized - I guess in business, the best opportune time is to get you when you're down, never taking you on face-on.

Having said that, I would like to continue on and touch a little bit on the customer satisfaction to the extent that, as my colleague previously said about the 1,500 complaints you received, have those 1,500 people been contacted, or have their names been given to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage? I ask you that because there were 1,500 complaints, but I'll take the opposite approach, there are 1,500 opportunities to resolve those complaints and make it 1,500 goodwill opportunities. Has that been done?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Let me clarify a couple of points there. The 11,000 employees that were referred to are employees who work at the airport. The vast bulk of those employees work for airlines, handlers and any number of suppliers and that sort of thing at the airport. The Airport Authority has about 130 employees.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: But I say that because of the magnitude of that airport. That airport is as important to the economy and the overall reputation of Nova Scotia as our energy crisis is right now that we're experiencing that's causing everything in the province to escalate in price. That airport is the hub of Nova Scotia. Anything that affects that airport doesn't just affect the airport. You have tourism, you have business, you have all those events that are planned throughout the province. That affects anything from Yarmouth to

Cape Breton and everything in between. That is a major drawing card and goodwill is one of them.

That's why I asked if those 1,500 opportunities were received, to pacify those people. Those 1,500 complaints all have families, relatives and business associates, and that spreads. The 1,500 stones going into the pond are going to make a larger wave or positive effect than if you just let the complaints lie.

MR. PETER CLARKE: Yes, I agree with you. Just to clarify again, just for the sake of accuracy, we didn't say anything about 1,500 complaints, I think it was actually close to 1,100 or 1,200 - is that correct? - about 1,200.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Well, regardless . . .

MR. PETER CLARKE: You're right, regardless. The vast majority of these were simply phone calls, people phoning in, asking for information, asking for clarification or complaining. So they were dealt with directly. A number of them were e-mails, a number of them were letters, and we do have contact information for those people.

Every one of them have been answered. Every one of them have had their questions answered, and received our apology. I don't know off the top of my head whether the contact information for the written and electronic communications was passed on to the Tourism Department, but when I return I'll verify that that took place, and if it hasn't I can assure you that we will send that contact information on to the Tourism Department.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: After the meeting is over I'll give you a private complaint that I had when I was travelling through there. It has nothing to do with your situation here. With that I'll turn it over to Mr. Theriault.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.

MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, panel, for your presentation this morning. I have great respect for you, the airport, and I have great respect for fog, also. I've worked in it for many years, in the fishing industry, and also in tourism, in the Summertime, running people out to see the whales. We worked with the fog. I can also tell you exactly how many foggy days there are a year, every year, back for 35 years and when those foggy days are. From June 1^st to July 15^th, yearly, I've seen times, where I live, for 30 days, not seeing over 150 feet ahead of you. But after July 15^th, it's beautiful. If you look out here today and now for the next two to three months, you're going to see a lot of beautiful weather. If you see five foggy days between now and November, I'll take back what I'm saying.

I would like to have something clarified here. We keep talking about fog stopping the flights, and we keep talking about construction stopping the flights. If this construction hadn't been going on in that time period, would these flights have been disrupted because of the fog?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Not as many would have been disrupted, but there would have been disruptions because at times during those long weekends there were visibility conditions that were below Category 2, as I said in my presentation, about four and a half to five hours each day on July 1^st and 2^nd.

MR. THERIAULT: Couldn't that have been adjusted? Didn't you know when the foggiest time of the year was in Nova Scotia? It's just common knowledge. Like I said, from June 1^st to July 15^th, it goes back in history that that is our foggy period. This year, I will grant you, we did have more inland fog this year because of the damper Spring that we had. That caused more fog in where the Halifax Airport would be. I think anybody from Environment or who knew anything about the weather at all could have helped you out on that, it seems to me. I could have, if you had called. (Laughter)

MR. PETER CLARKE: We'll get your number. (Laughter) This is really a contentious issue, this discussion of fog and when it occurs and even what fog is. We deal with visibility conditions, and so we have various categories of that that match the instrument landing systems that we use. For example, in aviation there are two sort of conditions, there's a visual-flying environment and an instrument-flying environment. Once the ceiling goes below 1,000 feet and the horizontal visibility goes below three miles, it goes from what's called visual-flying conditions to instrument-flying conditions. You then need some assistance in doing that.

We have two levels of instrument landing systems. Category 1, that allows people to move down to the 200-foot ceiling level and the half-mile visibility, and the Category 2 allows you down to the 100-foot ceiling and the quarter-mile visibility. What we had operating at the time of the intersecting runway was a portion of an instrument landing system called a localizer. A localizer is an electronic beam that provides - it's not in the runway, it's off the runway - assistance to pilots in finding the centre line of the runway. The sort of limits on that are about 400 feet and about one-mile visibility. So there's the difference between the visual flying, which is 1,000 feet and three miles, and down to there.

We're talking about conditions in those areas. So what fog is, I'm not sure, but I know what a 1,000-foot ceiling is and I know what three miles visibility is. We have all kinds of statistics on this sort of thing, and we have them for the Halifax International Airport. With all due respect, wherever you're fishing is going to be different from the Halifax International Airport; the Halifax International Airport may have fog when you don't and you may have fog when they don't. Fog is a pretty tricky thing, I'll tell you. You can come in, and we've seen this happen at the airport time and again, it really drives passengers mad, they

come in and they see that one company's airline comes in, circles around and makes a couple of attempts to land, and divert to Moncton, and 10 minutes later another company comes in and they land. Within five or 10 minutes fog can clear up, temporarily and in patches, stuff like that. It's a very difficult thing to get a handle on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. We'll move to the Progressive Conservative caucus. Are there any further questions from the members?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the honourable member to my immediate left would make an excellent chairman of an all-Party committee on fog. He seems to be of foremost knowledge on it, and I suggested at the last hearing that maybe that's something we should look into. Quite seriously, though, it would be doing the guests who have very important roles and responsibilities a favour, and certainly justice by moving a motion of adjournment, but I don't think I would gather the necessary support to let them go about their very important business.

I want to say here and now that I always, and will continue to, impart - I firmly believe all politicians, irrespective of political striping, have the best interests of their constituents and Nova Scotians at heart. There are times, unfortunately, though, that cynicism is generated and fostered by different measures, if you will, that politicians take. I think, clearly, today is a case where our constituents would much rather that we were about tending to some of the very important things that our constituents are facing. This issue here has been, as far as I'm concerned, overblown, it's out of proportion, and it's time that we moved on with something more important.

In that context I would like to ask our guests to tell us about the exciting plan to build a hotel on-site, and where the HIAA stands with that, and perhaps what chain, if you can, will be moving in, if that plan has in fact advanced to that stage?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Well, the status of the hotel project is that there is a request for an expression of interest by developers that's currently out now that's being examined by the development community and the hotels. The decision was made to proceed with looking for interest in a hotel after some very extensive studies that were done, looking at the market opportunities, not only here in Halifax but comparing them to things across the country.

We had a consultant that's very experienced in this look across the country, and basically they concluded that there is a significant amount of unmet demand for hotel accommodations, not only in Halifax but also on the edges of Halifax out towards the airport. Included in their assessment of supply, not only the existing airport hotel and the Inn on the Lake but also the new airport hotel, the Hilton that's being built there, and they still concluded that there's considerable demand and that all of these hotels could co-exist and be financially successful.

What we're doing now is we're going out to the development community and seeing if they agree with that assessment, determining if there's some interest there from people. We do expect that we'll get some very positive interest. We'll be interested in seeing on what basis they would like to do this, whether it's a straight lease of property or whether they want a partnership with the airport, that sort of thing.

We've had a bit of history with the hotels at the airport, and we're stepping pretty carefully. We want to make sure that we get the right partner for development in this, and that everybody is in agreement that this is the right way to go. We're being very careful in collecting expressions of interest at this point in time. We expect it to proceed along and hopefully we'll come up with a suitable developer, and we'll have a hotel there within the next 18 months to two years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller, you wanted to add to that?

[10:30 a.m.]

MR. MILLER: I just wanted to, if I could, Mr. Chairman, add one other exciting development that I really think is going to have a fundamental change on the patterns of transportation from Atlantic Canada across the border to the United States, and that's the opening of the pre-clearance facility that will open in October of next year. Currently we have a situation where the vast majority of people travelling in the United States fly backwards two hours to Toronto or Montreal and then catch their flights, and go through customs up there and then go forward.

We will have, at that point, in October 2006, U.S. customs here, so that we will screen passengers for security, they'll then go through U.S. customs here, and it opens up a whole range of new opportunities. We can fly then into airports that don't have customs facilities - Manchester, New Hampshire, and Portland, Maine - rather than being restricted into Boston and so on, and longer hauls beyond. It will shorten and make it much more convenient and cheaper for Atlantic Canadians to come to Halifax, clear customs here and fly directly into the United States, long haul and short haul. I think the hubs at New York and Boston and even Washington are going to be the principal hubs for Atlantic Canada going to the United States in the future.

I think that's really exciting, and Ottawa, which was the last city to get pre-clearance, within three years doubled their transport of traffic from the introduction of pre-clearance. That's a pretty exciting development, and we're all pleased with that. It was a long battle of eight years to get that.

MR. TAYLOR: Was it over 3 million passengers who moved through the airport last year, during your last fiscal year?

MR. MILLER: Well, 3.2 million is the total passenger flow, which includes those coming in and those going out. So it's 1.6 million each way.

MR. TAYLOR: I know a lot of passengers are greeted by those wonderful people in the Nova Scotia tartan vests and so on. The demographic, are they generally senior citizens, folks who are volunteering their time? And how many would there be?

MR. MILLER: They are our secret weapon, and the fact that we won the title of the best airport in the Americas last year, and for two years in a row we've been named the best airport of under 5 million passengers in the world, a very large part of that goes to those volunteers. They are generally senior citizens, although that's not a requirement. They are all volunteers, and they are probably the most enthusiastic, helpful group of people we could imagine. It really exceeds all expectations, what they do for us. We get a wonderful response from passengers.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I understand they were quite instrumental, helpful and very courteous during the 9/11 disaster that hit the United States, in particular in New York, when all the flights were diverted to your airport. Could you expand on that, just a little bit, as to how the volunteers at the airport and the HIAA handled the additional responsibilities? You had a lot of people to deal with and a lot of planes sitting out on the tarmac.

MR. MILLER: Maybe I'll ask Peter to take that.

MR. PETER CLARKE: Yes, as a matter of fact I think we had 41 aircraft, all wide-bodied, transcontinental aircraft stopped there at the time. We've been recognized by the U.S. Government, even by President Bush during his visit here last year, about the airport's contribution, and of course that's all part of the contribution of the entire community, not only just Halifax but all of Nova Scotia. There were similar efforts made elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. I think we all have a lot to be proud of there.

In terms of the volunteers, there's about 130 of them. They're all trained in, interestingly enough, the Superhost Program, which is a program that the provincial Department of Tourism has introduced in Nova Scotia. They were originally trained directly by Tourism officials. We've now had some of our volunteers trained as trainers and they train new recruits as they come along. So we're all using the same provincial program that is being used by Tourism officials, Tourism employees, when they're dealing with passengers, customers.

Their role is simply to help out in any way they possibly can. The different things I talked about that we're getting out, the blankets and the phone cards and things, they do take those around, they talk to customers. They can do anything from give directions to the washroom to consoling people who are coming on sad events or aren't looking forward to whatever they're facing. They're there, not to sort of interfere, and passengers who know

where they're going and seem to be happy going there probably won't notice these people. But they're trained to notice people who need some help, look confused or look a little, somehow, in need of help, and that's when they move in and help out. They've been tremendously successful in that. It has really enhanced our reputation right throughout the international community as an airport that is hospitable, that is polite, that is pleasant, that welcomes people and is helpful.

MR. TAYLOR: I know, Mr. Chairman, that the former CEO was, I won't say, lured away, but he certainly had an excellent way of communicating with all the different stakeholders, and I know that he will be missed and is missed. I've had a chance to speak with Ms. Humphries at a function, your AGM, and I know she has big shoes to fill, and I think she's more than capable, knowing her background. I certainly wish you well in that position, which is very important.

I want to go back to you, Mr. Miller, you've been with the HIAA a considerable time.

MR. MILLER: Just short of 10 years.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and I understand, unfortunately - I feel that it is unfortunate - that as chairman of the board you may be soon moving on, I won't say to greener pastures, just moving on. Is there any truth to that rumour?

MR. MILLER: Well, yes, I announced at the annual meeting - thank God I did - that I would not be offering as chairman, and that my term will terminate at the end of this year, as chairman, I might remain for a year as past-chairman, as a member of the board, but I will not be the chairman going forward. The reason I say I'm glad I announced it at the annual meeting is because I can see the headline, if I hadn't - and probably I'll see it anyway - that the fog brought me down. It really isn't the fog, it's a decision that the board made and I made. So the end of this year - it has been a great 10 years, and I'm very happy.

I'm terribly worried, disturbed and concerned that this event happened the way it did, that really is tremendously regrettable, and we all feel it. We wish it hadn't. We wish we could have done something differently. Unfortunately it did happen and we have to deal with it, but we're all pretty resolved that we're going to put it behind us and go on, continuing to be the world's best airport - with me or without me.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I understand I do have a couple of minutes. I just want to, if I could, shift gears a little bit to the commercial side of the business at the airport, commercial freight. How have the volumes there, and quite frankly I missed part of the presentation at the AGM - is commercial freight increasing, decreasing, holding its own? How many carriers would the airport have relative to that important component?

MR. PETER CLARKE: We had a record year in 2004 with our commercial freight. We had a number of different carriers. But that business has become quite complicated in the early parts of this year, primarily by the war in Iraq. We had a couple of dedicated carriers. Halifax doesn't really have the two-way traffic to justify a route between, say, Halifax and Europe. There's a lot of outgoing freight, in terms of live seafood, fresh seafood, but there's not that much incoming freight that would justify air freight.

So what we had developed was a system whereby aircraft that come into the United States would return to Europe, stopping in Halifax and picking up and filling up that freight. Unfortunately a number of those carriers have been commandeered by the U.S. Government to do supply in Iraq, and we've lost a couple of carriers that were taking that. As a result, some of that business - now we've had some of that business replaced, Air Canada started up a dedicated freighter service this year, and that's taking over much of that business - but some of that business has gone back to trucking, to other airports, up to Toronto, Montreal and down to Boston, to be placed on passenger aircraft in the belly of the wide bodies there. So we haven't seen the final figures this year but we expect to see that that will be dropping our actual freight that is in-planed and deplaned through the airport.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now move to five minutes and we will move to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Pictou West.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Good morning, folks, I guess my time is limited. I'm going to direct my question to Ms. Humphries, since we haven't heard from her yet, and congratulations certainly to you as CEO of the Airport Authority. I guess we've heard from Mr. Miller and Mr. Clarke at a previous caucus presentation, so I just wanted to get your take on all this.

First of all I'm not quite sure when you started, so perhaps you can explain that and as CEO of the Authority, your focus on what has gone on in the past and how can we move forward here to make things better?

MS. HUMPHRIES: I actually assumed my responsibilities August 2^nd, so following this event. I think that both Mr. Miller and Mr. Clarke have spoken very eloquently and accurately to those events. What I can tell you is that moving forward we have learned, as they have said, from this event and we will continue to have very open communications, and ensure that the public is very aware of any construction happening which could have an adverse impact from the perspective of delays or diversions.

MR. PARKER: You have a big responsibility, no question about that. I think Mr. Miller expressed it best, I think we all regret what happened, it's unfortunate it did, but it is seen as a black eye on the Airport Authority. Like I said, it's unfortunate it happened but it

did happen and I think you've learned some lessons from it, especially around communications, maybe the need for a backup plan. What do you feel, personally, you have learned - I realize you weren't there during the foggy times, but you're aware of what happened - what do you think is the biggest lesson learned and how can we make sure it's not going to happen again?

MS. HUMPHRIES: Certainly the need to ensure that the public is fully informed of any potential diversions or delays from construction, whether that be to the air terminal building or whether that be to the airfield. What I can tell you is that as we move forward we're revisiting the plans, in terms of looking at the segments which could impact with any potential delays or diversions and doing a very rigorous risk analysis, ensuring that we do have the appropriate communications in place to support that.

Going forward in the next few years of the runway airfield reconstruction program, we will be running a public service campaign through the months of May to October. We'll continue through that period to advise our stakeholders, our airline partners, our media, with daily and hourly updates on weather, as required.

[10:43 a.m. Mr. Brooke Taylor took the Chair.]

MR. PARKER: We've always heard that the customer is No. 1, without a customer we wouldn't have a business, you wouldn't have an Airport Authority to run. A lot of customers were inconvenienced in this July incident and I think the question was asked earlier about how they can be contacted, sending a letter or e-mail back to them. Are there any plans to deal directly with the customers that were affected here in this incident in July, and going into the future, how do you expect to handle individual concerns or problems?

MS. HUMPHRIES: We respond to every concern, question, or issue which is raised by any member of the community, and also with the customers or the guests who come to our airport. We either will speak to those individuals directly, via the phone, or deal with them through communications, via e-mail or letters and we will continue to do that. We will continue to address those questions and ensure that they receive a satisfactory response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The NDP time is up. We will move to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I would like to begin by recognizing Bernie Miller for his 10 years of service and thank him for the 10 years of decision making and progress that has been made. We can't control the weather. If we ever get to that point I think we'll be in the centre of Star Wars, but anyway, hopefully we can and with the guidance of Mr. Theriault here I think we could achieve that.

After thanking Mr. Miller, I would look at what happened as a small glitch, I always like to take the positive approach. I point back to the tremendous, devastating affair that happened with Tylenol a few years back where it looked as if nobody would buy that product again. They went into a massive advertising program and assured everyone it was and is safe and their sales have probably doubled or tripled since that time. What I was wondering was, does the Airport Authority look to the future as having an interesting or an aggressive marketing program in advertising, so that Halifax will surpass where it was as No. 1, and be a focus of a wannabe destination, I want to go to Halifax type of thing rather than, do we have to go there? Are there any plans in your future marketing to increase it and be extremely aggressive to go even higher than where you were before this incident happened?

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. MILLER: Aside from the infrastructure, it's one of the greatest successes I think that we've had at the airport. When we took over the airport we had three or four airlines, something like that. We have had as many as 23 in the five years that we've operated the airport. Now it has shrunk down a little, after the MK Airlines accident, but we're still in the range of 20. Our marketing people are extremely aggressive, they're in touch with all the airlines of the world constantly trying to get new business, to bring all of the advantages of Halifax to mind in the head offices of these airlines. Peter, maybe if you wanted to just expand on that.

MR. PETER CLARKE: We certainly do intend to do that, we've already started doing that by putting out public service notices about the airport. The theme is safety and the safety relation of this project. We will continue to promote the airport, particularly going through achievements and milestones as we achieve our goals.

One of the things we've done already is we went out immediately and surveyed Nova Scotians for their reaction to the situation. I have some of the results here. The overwhelming majority - 701 interviews were done in the weeks following the two weeks in July where we had our impacts - of Maritimers had heard about the July travel disruptions at HIAA, but it is not a top-of-mind concern when they were asked to identify important issues facing Maritime Canadians. Less than 1 per cent mentioned the airport as a problem for the Maritimes.

Both the airport and its management received very high satisfaction levels, despite them being aware of these problems of traffic travel disruptions. Mostly these problems have not negatively affected their view of the airport and the Airport Authority. The strong majority of residents hold a favourable opinion of the Halifax Airport. The majority of Maritimers say that the handling of the travel problems was about what one would expect given the circumstances. Only 2 in 10 said that the Airport Authority's performance in dealing with the problems was worse than they expected. So we're trying to determine

exactly from at least Maritime Canadians what their concerns are here and this does not seem to be a big issue for them, hopefully we can move past that.

I already cited the results of our passenger surveys and their satisfaction levels in August seemed to have been unaffected. There's no doubt that an analysis of the calls, the letters, the e-mails we got, and the complaints directly related to this, that there are basic questions that these people wanted answered. I went over a few of them, I won't go over them again but of course they're included in our Web site, they're included in distribution in the terminal building when people are stranded, and they're included, of course in our ads, in our handouts that we're doing right now. So yes, I think we are working well to try to resolve these issues, first, by identifying what the issues are and then trying to direct our message towards them.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: It sounds good, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll move to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

The honourable member for Kings North.

MR. MARK PARENT: Like my other colleagues, I want to commend you on the work that you do and the important role that the Halifax International Airport plays not only in the economy and well-being of Nova Scotia, but the Atlantic Provinces. It's in that vein that we're here not as antagonists, but as people helping you to do your job even better.

I just want to summarize what I have heard said and then you can confirm for me whether I heard correctly. I heard three things very clearly. One is that the construction plan that was approved and worked on was a good plan, a viable plan, a necessary plan in light of the work that needed to be done. Number two, if there was a problem the problem was in communications. The communications were flawed when the fog came and lessons have been learned from that that hopefully will make sure that it's not repeated in the future. Number three is that the Department of Tourism was not notified that there would be potential problems and not asked to supply some sort of contingency plan because the fog was unseen by you at the time that you planned the construction. Are those the conclusions, am I hearing correctly what you've said this morning?

MR. MILLER: It's all correct, yes.

MR. PARENT: The fourth thing that I didn't hear as clearly and you were alluding to it with the member for Victoria-The Lakes was where the remedial work will be done. Is it to be done by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, with these passengers who were affected this past Summer? You've indicated, Mr. Clarke, that the surveys have shown that the disruption did not register in public polling that you've done. Nonetheless we do know that there were many passengers who were affected. Are you depending upon the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage totally to deal with those passengers, or are you going to be doing something to ensure that those passengers who were affected have a better experience and a better taste in their mouths as a result of the delays that they had? That's what I'm not clear on, I'm not hearing clearly what's going to be done with those.

I know the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage is trying to contact those people and we do know the problem with privacy and the airlines, but are there any plans that you have with those passengers or are the plans that you're working out simply for the future to make sure this doesn't happen again?

MR. PETER CLARKE: Well, a little bit of both. Anybody who has contacted us had gotten a response, has had their questions answered, has received an apology from us, our regrets over the inconvenience they experienced. We also ran an open letter as an ad. We're not able to contact all the people that did it, the airlines are not prepared to provide us with information from it. I suspect, although I haven't heard of the success of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, that they won't be able to get that information from the airlines as well. So we can only deal with the people we have contact information for and those who wrote us letters and e-mails, we've sent back copies in writing.

To try to cover off in general, we've been publishing these ads in the newspaper and we put an open letter to people, recognizing the inconvenience and apologizing for it and providing some explanations that were run in both newspapers and in the Atlantic edition of The Globe and Mail.

MR. PARENT: In response to those have you had any people who wanted follow-ups or were they all content with the apology and with the information they received?

MR. PETER CLARKE: No, we did have a small number who followed up with subsequent questions, with disputing our response on some technical matters and that sort of thing, so we have continued to follow up with them, either through conversations by phone or through more letters and e-mails. As they come back with more questions we will continue to address those questions.

MR. PARENT: Thank you. Those are the only questions. I do want to echo, Mr. Miller, our deep gratitude for your tenure of service, we've seen the Halifax International Airport grow exponentially and as you said, the customs pre-clearance is going to be another huge step forward. That work was done over eight years that matches roughly your tenure as chairman, so a deep thanks on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents to you.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Parent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Miller.

MR. MILLER: Just before we leave I wondered if we could have one more minute. Did you want to talk about the future?

MS. HUMPHRIES: The closing comments.

MR. MILLER: Eleanor, of course, as she said, joined us after these events. I wondered if she might reconsider her decision in the interim. We were, of course, in the period between presidents at the time this happened. We now have Eleanor at the helm. Eleanor is the former President of Credit Union Atlantic and has managed a large complex organization, and we're looking forward to great things. I thought maybe we could conclude our appearance this morning with just a couple of words from Eleanor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please go ahead.

MS. HUMPHRIES: I'd like to thank you all for your questions, comments and perspective. First let me say, I've joined an organization that possesses tremendous strength and that has a wonderful relationship with this community. There's no question, we've all shared an interest in building a modern, safe and customer-oriented airport.

Much has been accomplished in the last five years to improve our airport. Some changes are very visible while others have occurred behind the scenes. All of them, however, have improved the efficiency, comfort and passenger experience at Halifax International.

Going forward, I'm focused on customers' expectations for service, safety and reliability. We have an extensive capital plan to complete over the next five years which includes the remainder of the airfield reconstruction program. I understand, as does the whole organization, how important it is to keep passengers, stakeholders and the public well informed of our activities and any potential risk to passenger travel. Rigorous risk assessment of potential impacts and contingency planning is key to maintaining Nova Scotia's reputation as a great place to live, visit and do business.

As Peter has said, the runway reconstruction project is a multi-year undertaking. This will require public service campaigns through May to October each Summer for the next four years. The Airport Authority will continue to brief stakeholders, government officials, the media and the general public as construction phases are complete and the impacts become possible. The Airport Authority will also continue to work with its airline partners to help ensure impacts to airline passengers are minimized.

Since I assumed my responsibilities August 2^nd , I've already met with officials with the Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, the Department of Economic Development, airline officials, other government and community leaders to understand how we can work together to mitigate the disruptions to passengers during capital work.

The Airport Authority also continues to meet with airlines to work at ways to lessen the impact of possible disruptions. Some airlines have detailed contingency plans, others dealing with these disruptions as they occur. The airlines understand the need for this construction work and they're working hard to ensure that their passengers reach their final destinations.

We are committed to our community and to meeting the community's expectations of us. The Airport Authority continues to solicit advice from the community and business partners on what can be done to improve as we move forward. We appreciate your advice and your support as well.

The Airport Authority intends to work hard to regain any lost confidence resulting from these past disruptions. The Authority's number one priority, however, must remain the safety of those who use the airport. We intend to continue to take pride in our achievements which I firmly believe reflect positively on this whole community.

In the long term, however, I believe we all have a shared interest in recognizing that Halifax has a tremendous airport, a strong business community and excellent tourism prospects. I look forward to working collectively to maintain this strong reputation. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Eleanor, Gina, Peter and Bernie for coming in this morning and being so gracious. Thank you to all committee members and I would like to remind you our next meeting is Tuesday in the Dennis Building and our guests will be the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage and the Tourism Industry of Nova Scotia, regarding the overview of the tourism industry.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 10:59 a.m.]