Carrier
31st Dec 2005, 11:18
We have a federal general election coming up. Now is the time to review the federal government’s past performance in Canadian aviation and to demand some changes.
There is much complaining in all sectors of Canadian aviation about over-regulation, excessive taxes, duplicate charges for services that are already paid for in general taxation, poor and unresponsive services and a predatory attitude from unaccountable (to the captive victims) monopoly suppliers such as NavCan, etc, etc. I am wondering why Canadians do so much complaining but refuse to take any remedial action?
Contrast Canadian inaction with that in the US. The American alphabet groups vigorously stand up for their members and US aviation as a whole. The members support their executives in large numbers by individually contacting their political representatives on each issue and demanding answers. The names of US politicians who have a pilot’s licence or other connection with aviation are public knowledge. The result is that Americans have a far more user-friendly aviation environment with lower taxes and better service. Do current Canucks, particularly in aviation, lack the guts of their forefathers? Canada is one of the few countries without a radio and TV licence/tax. Decades ago the Canadian government tried to introduce one but there was so much opposition and refusal to pay that the idea was dropped. Why do current Canucks meekly put up with poor or abusive service and excessive taxation regarding aviation? Why do they not take the same proactive approach as their US counterparts? Is anyone interested in doing anything about it?
Are you meekly paying the second tax introduced a few years ago for renewal of your medical validation? In late 2006 are you wimpishly going to pay the new second tax for the AIM, the replacement of the AIP? You have already paid for these through general taxation. If Canada is a user-pay society then have the GST, income tax, excise duties, etc been scrapped? If you are still paying these then that confirms the point that anyone who pays the government or its protected monopolies these other payments in addition to general taxation is paying twice. In the February 2005 issue of General Aviation magazine Martin Robinson, Chief Executive of AOPA UK, states: “The UK government now treats taxation income as its own by right, while forcing us to pay extra for any services they bestir themselves to provide.” How applicable this quote is to Canada! The federal government uses all sorts of terms to try and convince the gullible that they are paying a private sector price in a competitive market, such as they would pay to buy a loaf of bread. It does not matter whether the federal government and its cronies such as NavCan call it a fee, rate, levy, subscription, duty, impost, charge, excise, price or some other term, the effect is the same. It is money that is compulsorily extracted from the citizen’s pocket and the general term for this is TAX. It is in addition to general taxation and as such it is a duplicate payment. I suggest that anyone who pays a second time is a rather dumb consumer, the sort of person who readily buys prime development real estate in Florida, a used tower in Paris or a bridge in New York!
I refer you below to my letter of 25 May 2005 to Kevin Psutka, President & CEO of COPA and to his reply dated 27 May 2005. I appreciate Kevin’s prompt and honest reply. He is doing his best without the support that he deserves from individuals and from other aviation associations. It is rather sad that those other associations are apparently so small minded and selfishly focused on their own narrow concerns that they will not do anything to help Canadian aviation as a whole! I suggest now is the time to review the situation and take some action. What can be done?
First, if you belong to any of the associations mentioned by Kevin Psutka you should without delay contact your association’s President and demand that he immediately work with the other associations to co-ordinate some action regarding the forthcoming federal general election. Second, you should contact candidates and party leaders and demand to know who in their party holds a pilot’s licence or has some other interest in aviation. If they do not know, ask why not and tell them to find out and get back to you. Third, ask them to explain clearly what they intend to do about the excessive red tape, poor service, abuse of monopoly suppliers, and double/excessive taxation that currently plagues Canadian aviation. Fourth, ask how long it will take them to implement changes should they be elected. Fifth, make it clear to the candidates, to bureaucrats and the media that you have had enough of the double taxation and in future will no longer make additional payments for future medical validations, the new AIM, etc. Make it clear to both would-be MPs and the bureaucrats that you have already paid for these through general taxation and you expect them to get off their backsides and provide you with the services that you have already paid for! In particular, if you hear of any candidates or party leaders on open-line shows make a point of calling in and putting these questions and concerns to them on the air. Remember the old saying: “United we stand, divided we fall.” If everyone in Canadian aviation works together and plays a part we can wield massive influence and get some changes. It does however take all of us. Please contact your friends and acquaintances in aviation and ask them to play a part.
It’s your choice. You can play a part and be part of the solution or you can do nothing and be part of the problem. It will be interesting over the next three weeks to see if the Canadian aviation industry is able to get its act together and demand some significant changes in standards of service, accountability and taxation or if apathy will prevail and the usual ineffective hangar-flying grumbling will continue.
Kevin Psutka
President and CEO
Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
207-75 Albert St.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1P 5E7
25 May 2005
Re: MPs and Senators who hold a pilot’s licence
Hi Kevin,
On 17 March 2005 I contacted you regarding this topic and I appreciate your reply dated 22 March 2005. A few weeks ago I was looking at the April issue of Business & Commercial Aviation magazine and in particular their reports on which aviation-oriented politicians had been elected or defeated in the US elections and what this might mean for aviation in the USA. Information on where Canadian politicians stand regarding aviation should be readily available. The parties should be pressed to provide this. Any competently run party (are there any?) should know the strengths and weaknesses of all its candidates and where they stand on various issues. All they have to do is provide the information. If they do not have it readily available then I suggest they are not suitable persons to run Canada anyway!
After receiving your reply I sent an email letter to Stephen Harper and Jack Layton asking which of their people hold a pilot’s licence. I asked them to copy you with the reply as I am sure you would also like to know. No point in sending one to the Grits as the present mess and poor service is their responsibility and tells us all we need to know about their attitude towards Canadian aviation.
After twice sending the email to Layton I finally received a response: “Mr. Layton does not have a pilot's license. This information for other NDP parliamentarians is not readily available.” Obviously no interest there!
I three times emailed Harper and each time received a reply stating: “Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply. *Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response. If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address them to: Stephen Harper, M.P. Leader of the Opposition House of Commons Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6 Mail may be sent postage free to any Member of Parliament. You can also reach Mr. Harper by fax at: (613) 947-0310” It is rather sad that Canada has a Leader of the Opposition who based on his or his assistant’s reply to a voter’s query is such a cretin or is functionally illiterate to the extent that he is unable to understand a normal business letter and to differentiate between a letter asking for information and one expressing views. Doh! Don’t expect anything to change if this moron should become PM. At least Layton’s reply did partly address the issue.
What can be done? It seems to me that the only way to motivate career “snout in the fully indexed public trough” politicians of the Martin/Harper/Layton ilk and their followers is to threaten to remove their snouts from the trough. Can this be done effectively? I suggest it can. You might not be familiar with the UK’s ban on hunting that was implemented early this year. This was a bitter class motivated battle that has been on-going for many decades. The recent UK general election could not have come at a better time, a matter of weeks after the ban came into effect. Pro-hunting supporters applied a policy of tactical voting on behalf of pro-hunting candidates and against anti-hunting MPs. According to the article on page 10 of The Weekly Telegraph Issue 720 they managed to unseat twenty-nine anti-hunting MPs, including the parliamentary private secretary to the rural affairs minister. The network of hunt supporters, called Vote-OK and directed by Charles Mann, managed this with only six weeks’ preparation and no previous experience. They regard this as a rehearsal and expect to play an even greater role in the next UK general election. I suggest aviation in Canada can do the same in both federal and provincial elections.
Imagine if all Canadians whose jobs depend on aviation -- pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket agents, controllers, security staff, travel agents, aviation journalists, fuel suppliers, airframe and engine makers, office staff, accountants, etc – should all get together to apply tactical voting in favour of pro-aviation candidates and against anti-aviation candidates. All it needs is some leadership and organisation.
With a minority government there is likely to be a federal general election fairly soon. I suggest that without delay you and your counterparts in all areas of Canadian aviation should be meeting to implement a similar tactical voting campaign. If you need any advice or guidance I expect Charles Mann, the national campaign director of Vote-OK, would be able to help.
Cheers,
27 May 2005
I hate to be negative about this issue but we have tried to fire up the parties and the Canadian aviation industry and have been unsuccessful in these attempts. Aviation is just one of those things that people, including the industry, are not interested in uniting their efforts.
As an example, earlier this year COPA released a draft Policy for General Aviation. A copy of it is attached. Since the topics are broader than simply ones that are of immediate concern for "those rich boys with their toys", as we are so often considered, I solicited the other Associations (ATAC, CBAA, CAC, CAMC, etc) to get on board. No one did, because they said they were too busy chasing their individual problems. I shopped the policy to all parties and at the senior bureaucratic level of the government but it fell flat on all accounts. We just do not matter in the face of all of the other issues.
In the UK, there are so many hunters in influential places that it turned the tide. In Canada, boaters or snowmobilers would be able to effect such control simply because of the numbers involved. Aviation, unfortunately is a small number of people, even though if a proper study were done by the government about what it contributes, it would clearly indicate that more support and protection is justified.
We continue in our efforts to educate and with every issue we report, we encourage our members to take pen to paper and educate their member of Parliament and the opposition. Being typical Canadians, very few actually do so.
Kevin
There is much complaining in all sectors of Canadian aviation about over-regulation, excessive taxes, duplicate charges for services that are already paid for in general taxation, poor and unresponsive services and a predatory attitude from unaccountable (to the captive victims) monopoly suppliers such as NavCan, etc, etc. I am wondering why Canadians do so much complaining but refuse to take any remedial action?
Contrast Canadian inaction with that in the US. The American alphabet groups vigorously stand up for their members and US aviation as a whole. The members support their executives in large numbers by individually contacting their political representatives on each issue and demanding answers. The names of US politicians who have a pilot’s licence or other connection with aviation are public knowledge. The result is that Americans have a far more user-friendly aviation environment with lower taxes and better service. Do current Canucks, particularly in aviation, lack the guts of their forefathers? Canada is one of the few countries without a radio and TV licence/tax. Decades ago the Canadian government tried to introduce one but there was so much opposition and refusal to pay that the idea was dropped. Why do current Canucks meekly put up with poor or abusive service and excessive taxation regarding aviation? Why do they not take the same proactive approach as their US counterparts? Is anyone interested in doing anything about it?
Are you meekly paying the second tax introduced a few years ago for renewal of your medical validation? In late 2006 are you wimpishly going to pay the new second tax for the AIM, the replacement of the AIP? You have already paid for these through general taxation. If Canada is a user-pay society then have the GST, income tax, excise duties, etc been scrapped? If you are still paying these then that confirms the point that anyone who pays the government or its protected monopolies these other payments in addition to general taxation is paying twice. In the February 2005 issue of General Aviation magazine Martin Robinson, Chief Executive of AOPA UK, states: “The UK government now treats taxation income as its own by right, while forcing us to pay extra for any services they bestir themselves to provide.” How applicable this quote is to Canada! The federal government uses all sorts of terms to try and convince the gullible that they are paying a private sector price in a competitive market, such as they would pay to buy a loaf of bread. It does not matter whether the federal government and its cronies such as NavCan call it a fee, rate, levy, subscription, duty, impost, charge, excise, price or some other term, the effect is the same. It is money that is compulsorily extracted from the citizen’s pocket and the general term for this is TAX. It is in addition to general taxation and as such it is a duplicate payment. I suggest that anyone who pays a second time is a rather dumb consumer, the sort of person who readily buys prime development real estate in Florida, a used tower in Paris or a bridge in New York!
I refer you below to my letter of 25 May 2005 to Kevin Psutka, President & CEO of COPA and to his reply dated 27 May 2005. I appreciate Kevin’s prompt and honest reply. He is doing his best without the support that he deserves from individuals and from other aviation associations. It is rather sad that those other associations are apparently so small minded and selfishly focused on their own narrow concerns that they will not do anything to help Canadian aviation as a whole! I suggest now is the time to review the situation and take some action. What can be done?
First, if you belong to any of the associations mentioned by Kevin Psutka you should without delay contact your association’s President and demand that he immediately work with the other associations to co-ordinate some action regarding the forthcoming federal general election. Second, you should contact candidates and party leaders and demand to know who in their party holds a pilot’s licence or has some other interest in aviation. If they do not know, ask why not and tell them to find out and get back to you. Third, ask them to explain clearly what they intend to do about the excessive red tape, poor service, abuse of monopoly suppliers, and double/excessive taxation that currently plagues Canadian aviation. Fourth, ask how long it will take them to implement changes should they be elected. Fifth, make it clear to the candidates, to bureaucrats and the media that you have had enough of the double taxation and in future will no longer make additional payments for future medical validations, the new AIM, etc. Make it clear to both would-be MPs and the bureaucrats that you have already paid for these through general taxation and you expect them to get off their backsides and provide you with the services that you have already paid for! In particular, if you hear of any candidates or party leaders on open-line shows make a point of calling in and putting these questions and concerns to them on the air. Remember the old saying: “United we stand, divided we fall.” If everyone in Canadian aviation works together and plays a part we can wield massive influence and get some changes. It does however take all of us. Please contact your friends and acquaintances in aviation and ask them to play a part.
It’s your choice. You can play a part and be part of the solution or you can do nothing and be part of the problem. It will be interesting over the next three weeks to see if the Canadian aviation industry is able to get its act together and demand some significant changes in standards of service, accountability and taxation or if apathy will prevail and the usual ineffective hangar-flying grumbling will continue.
Kevin Psutka
President and CEO
Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
207-75 Albert St.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1P 5E7
25 May 2005
Re: MPs and Senators who hold a pilot’s licence
Hi Kevin,
On 17 March 2005 I contacted you regarding this topic and I appreciate your reply dated 22 March 2005. A few weeks ago I was looking at the April issue of Business & Commercial Aviation magazine and in particular their reports on which aviation-oriented politicians had been elected or defeated in the US elections and what this might mean for aviation in the USA. Information on where Canadian politicians stand regarding aviation should be readily available. The parties should be pressed to provide this. Any competently run party (are there any?) should know the strengths and weaknesses of all its candidates and where they stand on various issues. All they have to do is provide the information. If they do not have it readily available then I suggest they are not suitable persons to run Canada anyway!
After receiving your reply I sent an email letter to Stephen Harper and Jack Layton asking which of their people hold a pilot’s licence. I asked them to copy you with the reply as I am sure you would also like to know. No point in sending one to the Grits as the present mess and poor service is their responsibility and tells us all we need to know about their attitude towards Canadian aviation.
After twice sending the email to Layton I finally received a response: “Mr. Layton does not have a pilot's license. This information for other NDP parliamentarians is not readily available.” Obviously no interest there!
I three times emailed Harper and each time received a reply stating: “Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply. *Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response. If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address them to: Stephen Harper, M.P. Leader of the Opposition House of Commons Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6 Mail may be sent postage free to any Member of Parliament. You can also reach Mr. Harper by fax at: (613) 947-0310” It is rather sad that Canada has a Leader of the Opposition who based on his or his assistant’s reply to a voter’s query is such a cretin or is functionally illiterate to the extent that he is unable to understand a normal business letter and to differentiate between a letter asking for information and one expressing views. Doh! Don’t expect anything to change if this moron should become PM. At least Layton’s reply did partly address the issue.
What can be done? It seems to me that the only way to motivate career “snout in the fully indexed public trough” politicians of the Martin/Harper/Layton ilk and their followers is to threaten to remove their snouts from the trough. Can this be done effectively? I suggest it can. You might not be familiar with the UK’s ban on hunting that was implemented early this year. This was a bitter class motivated battle that has been on-going for many decades. The recent UK general election could not have come at a better time, a matter of weeks after the ban came into effect. Pro-hunting supporters applied a policy of tactical voting on behalf of pro-hunting candidates and against anti-hunting MPs. According to the article on page 10 of The Weekly Telegraph Issue 720 they managed to unseat twenty-nine anti-hunting MPs, including the parliamentary private secretary to the rural affairs minister. The network of hunt supporters, called Vote-OK and directed by Charles Mann, managed this with only six weeks’ preparation and no previous experience. They regard this as a rehearsal and expect to play an even greater role in the next UK general election. I suggest aviation in Canada can do the same in both federal and provincial elections.
Imagine if all Canadians whose jobs depend on aviation -- pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket agents, controllers, security staff, travel agents, aviation journalists, fuel suppliers, airframe and engine makers, office staff, accountants, etc – should all get together to apply tactical voting in favour of pro-aviation candidates and against anti-aviation candidates. All it needs is some leadership and organisation.
With a minority government there is likely to be a federal general election fairly soon. I suggest that without delay you and your counterparts in all areas of Canadian aviation should be meeting to implement a similar tactical voting campaign. If you need any advice or guidance I expect Charles Mann, the national campaign director of Vote-OK, would be able to help.
Cheers,
27 May 2005
I hate to be negative about this issue but we have tried to fire up the parties and the Canadian aviation industry and have been unsuccessful in these attempts. Aviation is just one of those things that people, including the industry, are not interested in uniting their efforts.
As an example, earlier this year COPA released a draft Policy for General Aviation. A copy of it is attached. Since the topics are broader than simply ones that are of immediate concern for "those rich boys with their toys", as we are so often considered, I solicited the other Associations (ATAC, CBAA, CAC, CAMC, etc) to get on board. No one did, because they said they were too busy chasing their individual problems. I shopped the policy to all parties and at the senior bureaucratic level of the government but it fell flat on all accounts. We just do not matter in the face of all of the other issues.
In the UK, there are so many hunters in influential places that it turned the tide. In Canada, boaters or snowmobilers would be able to effect such control simply because of the numbers involved. Aviation, unfortunately is a small number of people, even though if a proper study were done by the government about what it contributes, it would clearly indicate that more support and protection is justified.
We continue in our efforts to educate and with every issue we report, we encourage our members to take pen to paper and educate their member of Parliament and the opposition. Being typical Canadians, very few actually do so.
Kevin