For short term recreational reason, to ferry or position an aircraft, to provide or receive type training, to operate a Canadian aircraft for a foreign operator, or to operate a Canadian aircraft wholly outside of Canada. and also, for specific commercial purposes like fighting forest fires, evacuation, etc in case of national emergencies such as fires, floods etc.
Then in 1998, TC added CASS 421.07(2)(j)
Except that the French version read like this :for reasons other than those mentioned above where approval may be given if, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest and not likely to affect aviation safety.
(amended 1998/03/23; no previous version)
The French version of this clause specified that 421.07(2)(j) could only be used in exceptional circumstances, and when authorized by the Minister. It so happens that the original draft of the English version also read that this clause could only be used in exceptional circumstances, and only when authorized by the Minister but for a reason that is not explained in the CARAC archives, of which I have a copy, the part that restricted the use of this clause only in exceptional circumstances was deleted from the published English language version but remained in the French version.j) lorsqu'une demande a la prétention de servir l'intérêt public canadien pour des raisons non pas visées par les circonstances pressantes énumérées ci-dessus, le ministre peut accorder une approbation dans les cas exceptionnels.
(modifié 1998/03/23; pas de version précédente)
Then Transport Canada, using this clause, began to allow foreign licenced pilots, to fly commercially in Canadaat the controls of large transport category jets operated under 705. Many FLVC were issued to foreign licenced pilots to fly for Skyservice airlines, Sunwing Airlines and Canjet.
Some winters, there were over 200 foreign licensed pilots flying large Canadian commercial jet inside of Canada using FLVCs issued under 421.07(2)(j), in clear violation of the French version of the CASS.
In fact, according to statistic obtained from Transport Canada, during certain calendar years, the vast majority of FLVCs issued by TC were issued under 421.07(2)(j).
Lawyers that were consulted all agreed that when an English and French version of a law or Regulation did not match, the most restrictive of the two applied. So the French version of 421.07(2)(j) should have applied since 1998. Yet it was simply ignored.
When Transport Canada was advised of this, they continued to ignore it until last month, when TC unilaterally adjusted the French version of the CASS to the English version, without any public consultations or a second thought.
Here is the new version:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/fra/aviationcivile ... 1-1086.htm
.j) lorsqu’une demande a la prétention de servir l’intérêt public et que la sécurité aérienne ne risque pas d'être compromise pour des raisons autres que celles énumérées ci-dessus, le ministre peut accorder une approbation.
(en vigeur 2016/07/31)
Transport Canada sees no contradiction in having on one hand a very restrictive rule that states:
421.07(2)(g)
for operation of Canadian aircraft on Canadian commercial air services in urgent circumstances; such as fire suppression operations, emergency agricultural and forestry aerial application, airlift in relief of domestic natural disasters, and search and rescue operations;
followed right after by clause j) which states that TC can issue FLVCs for any other reason.
With a clause j) with no restrictions, why does a clause g) even exist ?
Canada is now the only industrialized nation in the world that allows Foreign Licenced pilots to Operate local commercial aircraft.
Something to be proud of. Bravo!
