:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the presentation that was made last week. The session was cut short.
The issue of airport noise is one that I've been engaged in since early 2008. As a result of significant complaints from residents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine—which is on the Island of Montreal and includes the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, located in the city of Dorval—any attempts to get a reasonable hearing from the Aéroport de Montréal, ADM, on the part of citizens and on the part of elected officials, was basically brushed aside by ADM. ADM refused the invitations to come to public meetings, which were organized in at least one borough of the city of Montreal. The citizens organized, with my assistance and with the assistance of other elected officials, in order to attend the ADM's annual general meeting in ICAO's headquarters in Montreal in order to question the officials of ADM directly, given that they weren't getting any answers.
I see from your presentation that Transport Canada—the minister and through governor in council orders—has the actual authority to establish noise abatement levels and procedures and to implement them.
My question is, why isn't this being done in Quebec? Why isn't it being done in other areas of the country, where citizens and municipal officials, and in some cases regional officials, are complaining about the noise and the impact on the health of their citizens and other impacts as well?
:
I'd like to explain a little bit the general process.
The airports have a responsibility to have a consultative approach to establishing the noise reduction procedures in an airport. They're obliged to do that. Once those procedures are established, through a consultative process, they come to Transport Canada, we review them, we approve them, and then they get published by Nav Canada. The airlines are obliged to follow those procedures.
With regard to any issues that get addressed and are raised in the community, the airports have a responsibility to hear those complaints. They do not have a responsibility, specifically, to have committee hearings in response to those comments. They have a moral obligation to listen to the comments.
Their main obligation is to consult on procedures. If they change them, they have to go through a similar process. But if there's no change, they have no specific obligation to have a consultative process. It rests with them, as a responsibility to consult.
Since I'm only allotted three and a half minutes to speak to you, I'll be going quickly. I'll outline all my problems to you, and then you'll take the time you need to answer.
First, I'm very critical of the noise abatement regulations. They require a consensus in our region because they give every one of the major players a veto: the flight schools, the city, DASH-L and the citizens' committees. Now there are two committees, one in Saint-Bruno and the other in Saint-Hubert. That's my constituency, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
These groups have to agree, and that's very difficult. I believe the Department of Transport should get more involved and play more of a leadership role in this situation that we are experiencing in Saint-Hubert.
I would like to tell you about three solutions that I want to submit to the Department of Transport.
First, I note the urgent need to expedite the accreditation process for changing parts, such as less noisy rotors and mufflers. These parts are extremely expensive and the process takes a lot of time. It should absolutely be expedited in order to provide financial support to the airlines wishing to make those changes because it's very costly.
Second, approvals for more recent aircraft that produce less sound and environmental pollution should be accelerated. This is also an urgent matter. With regard to more recent aircraft, I'm thinking of Cessnas.
Third, I would like to know whether the Department of Transport has studied the various issues of airports in European urban areas and the solutions they have found and implemented. If so, I would like to have a copy of it.
Lastly, in the Library of Parliament document that was submitted to us, we're told that a noise management plan by the airport authority will eventually be approved by the Department of Transport. In short, it appears that there has been a noise management plan from DASH-L. Could I get a copy of it?
:
There are a lot of points there. First, I'm going to focus on the second point.
As regards aircraft, we are complying with ICAO's global regulations. The standards requested for all aircraft are consistent with ICAO's requests. ICAO's requirements will change, but we will comply with them. Getting equipment that meets standards is still a problem. That will change over time, but for the moment all aircraft in Canada meet ICAO requirements. There are certain exceptions in the north, but the aircraft that fly commercial routes in the south comply with ICAO requirements.
As regards the process, I understand the urgency. It's our responsibility to enforce existing rules. Departure profiles, for example, are established by the airport, approved by us and published by NAV Canada.
However, if there are any complaints, it is our role to determine whether there has been a violation and to act accordingly at that time. We have no other initiatives to change the process for the moment. We are here to enforce the rules established and published by NAV Canada.
:
I also have three questions. I'm going to ask them all, and you can feel free to answer them.
I'm going to switch to downtown Toronto. We have an island airport. It's a regular source of complaints to my office. With the expansion that's going on these days, these complaints are getting louder and more frantic, to the point where some people are moving out of the Bathurst Quay neighbourhood. So really, what is Transport Canada proposing to address those legitimate complaints? What additional limits should be placed upon airports, such as the island airport, that operate in such close proximity to huge numbers of residential and recreational areas?
I also note that all airports are supposed to have noise abatement procedures as a term of their leases, but in this case, the downtown Toronto Island Airport has no such requirement as there is no lease. I note from other questions that there seems to be no effective community input into policy development for noise abatement regulations. So the question is, what measures will Transport Canada take to obtain effective input into noise abatement policies for neighbourhoods and communities affected, and not just from the airports or the airlines?
My last area of questioning follows from my colleague's question. I notice that the European Union, through the World Health Organization, has adopted a charter on transports. It includes targets to reduce noise. They have guidelines, they talk about decreasing the noise pollution, and they have nighttime sound levels in residential areas within WHO-recommended nighttime values. The European Union also published its noise directive in 2002 requiring member states to draw up noise maps, an action plan. It's just very extensive, whereas in Canada, the Transport Canada website hardly has anything. What kind of active role do you want to take to address airport noise, especially in big urban centres?
:
During the opening remarks, when we started the discussion, I think I explained that one of the challenges in an airport is to consider many differing aspects--there's a neighbourhood, people want to fly, they want airports to be convenient. Certainly the success of Toronto Island Airport is because of its location close to the centre of town. So understanding that there's an impact on the people in the local community, there are a lot of different vested interests. That's why we would require the consultation approach, involving all stakeholders, certainly for the national airport system's airports. The national airport system across the country is intended to address exactly that, to come up with the best solutions that meet everybody's needs.
I'm not sure if that particular requirement is part of Toronto Island's requirement or not. It is different. The same issues do exist, obviously, at a community level--there are people who want to use the airport; they want the convenience. I also understand that that particular airport has some very specific limits on the types of aircraft that can operate there. We know that Porter Airlines is operating some of the quietest prop aircraft that we have. So there are special circumstances there, I understand, but there are also some special considerations. In the development of Toronto Island Airport I believe they've gone some way to address that. So you are correct. I don't believe it is part of their lease.
With respect to the EU, I think we've seen a number of areas that the European Union is quite aggressive on--some areas environmentally, not just noise. Although it's always of interest to see what they're doing, we have to make sure we look at that in a Canadian context. That particular piece is really a policy piece, which is not my area of responsibility in terms of where we're going as a country. My specific responsibility is the safety aspect, and that does include the day-to-day noise operation, but noise policy on a more general level is not part of my responsibility.
On another note, Mr. Eley, I'm going to go to the health question first. I am very thankful that the honourable colleague and friend of mine, Madam Jennings, not only worked for the people of Quebec, but in fact she was in my riding in British Columbia helping the people in British Columbia to deal with noise factors.
The issue that came up is—we have a health issue—that modern studies have found that there are acute health impacts from aircraft noise. And contrary to what the Bloc said, it is Madam Jennings' and my understanding that Health Canada is only involved at the beginning, when the infrastructure is put in, and is not consulted at all in the process afterwards.
Why wouldn't you do that, when all studies show that there are health risks with the noise?
:
Continuing in the same vein as my colleague, I would emphasize that the problem of urban airport noise was particularly serious in Germany. A study was conducted on the subject, and they managed to make it so that citizens and airports could live in harmony. In Saint-Hubert, the problem is very different than in Toronto or Dorval, and that's due to flight schools. As you know, trainee pilots take off and fly a kind of rectangular circuit before coming back and landing. On Sunday afternoons, for example, there may be 10, 15 or 20 aircraft within that rectangular circuit. Citizens whose houses are located below that circuit hear a new aircraft approximately every 30 seconds. It's as though your neighbour started up his lawn mower at regular intervals. It's enough to drive you crazy. It's really a big problem.
I'm not familiar with the other cases, but, in Saint-Hubert, the fact that you require the community to reach a consensus in order to change your regulations is virtually an impossible situation. To ask the flight schools, which have vested rights acknowledged by the airport's administrator DASH-L, to ask the city for its consent, to ask all the citizens committees to agree on the same changes, is to ask the impossible.
I've heard about your noise abatement regulations. I met with all your colleagues at a meeting. There were about 20 of them. Mr. Jacques Fauteux, who is director of policy and communications at the Prime Minister's Office, was there. They explained the situation to me from top to bottom.
How could the noise abatement regulations be amended so that they are no longer based on a regional consensus, which is at times impossible to achieve, but rather on the leadership of the minister and of the Department of Transport?
Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for your return to this committee for questions.
I must concede I'm not as familiar with this issue as most. It's not necessarily an issue that's been raised in our communities, so I'm trying to understand some of the debate and the concern around the table in terms of the line of questioning.
It seems me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, or other members may correct me in their turn if I've understood this wrong, that most of the complaints I'm hearing seem to be with the delegation of noise abatement management to the local airport authorities, which presumably includes this consultation process that they don't think is exactly right.
How long has that been the policy in this country, by the way? When was that established? Let's start with that.
In response to an answer Mr. Eley gave to Mr. Watson, I believe, stating that the situation of delegating authority for noise abatement to the airport authorities took place 10 years ago, I would like to read two short paragraphs from a letter signed by the Hon. Lawrence Cannon, when he was Minister of Transport, in response to a letter to me. His letter is dated April 20, 2008, and it reads:
[Translation]
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 2008, in which you shared that residents in your riding were dissatisfied with an Aéroports de Montréal (ADM) pilot project on a possible new flight path for airlines flying out of Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport (Montreal-Trudeau), which would take them over the Lachine borough.
I read the content of your letter carefully. However, as you know, on July 31, 1992, Transport Canada and ADM signed a 60-year lease transferring the use, management and development of the Montreal-Trudeau and Mirabel airports to ADM. This means that all decisions that fall under these areas at the aforementioned airports, including noise management and complaints, are now the responsibility of ADM.
[English]
I am simply reading this. I'm prepared to hand a copy of the letter over.
So it was not 10 years ago; it was in 1992, with regard to the international airport in Montreal, the Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.
:
Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee as part of your study on aircraft noise in the urban environment.
Accompanying me is Trevor Johnson, assistant vice-president of service delivery; and Larry Lachance, assistant vice-president of operational support.
As many of you know, Nav Canada is Canada's civil air navigation service provider. Our core business is providing air traffic control services to domestic and international flights within Canadian airspace and in delegated international airspace, including half of the North Atlantic, the busiest oceanic airspace in the world.
We operate the air traffic control towers at major airports, and at many smaller airports we operate flight service stations or community aerodrome radio stations.
We ourselves don't actually make a lot of noise; air traffic control is a pretty quiet operation. But we are cognizant of our role in noise management. As Transport Canada explained, the primary responsibility for aircraft noise management is with airports themselves.
We provide air traffic control services to aircraft in compliance with airport noise abatement procedures. These procedures, once developed by airports, and published, are as binding on air traffic controllers as they are on pilots. Violations of noise abatement procedures can be subject to enforcement fines by Transport Canada.
Noise abatement procedures are unique to each airport, but they can and do include things such as specified departure and arrival procedures, preferential runway determination, altitude restrictions, and night restrictions.
Noise abatement rules are limited, in most cases, to the 10 nautical miles around an airport. That is appropriate, in our view, as it is within this zone that higher noise levels from aircraft operations occur. Outside of 10 nautical miles, which is approximately 19 kilometres, it is not that aircraft can't be seen and heard but that there is not generally a noise level that would impact residents' quality of life.
Most major airports have active community noise management committees on which our local management serve as members. Our primary role on these committees is a technical one, sharing data and advising on any potential safety or efficiency impacts of noise management options.
Much has been made of changes that Nav Canada implemented to aircraft routings in the Vancouver area three years ago, so I'd like to address that issue up front.
What we changed in the Vancouver area were terminal manoeuvring routes at higher altitudes. This was done to make the airspace function more efficiently and to address growth in air traffic that had occurred at numerous airports in the area.
Our changes are saving airlines $20 million annually in fuel, and they are reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an associated 79,000 metric tonnes per year. They have reduced delays, the need for airborne holds during busy periods, and they have improved on what had been a complex and sometimes confusing terminal area with overlying routes into and out of area airports.
Quite frankly, I will admit that the noise complaints that followed the implementation of those changes took us by surprise. In the past when we have made these types of changes, we never got any complaints. However, once they began, we quickly initiated a review of the routes. We met with residents, municipalities, and members of Parliament as part of this review. We investigated complaints, examined the issues, conducted measurements to assess noise levels in the communities where the complaints were coming from, and, most importantly, we made adjustments to routes in response.
Recent noise measurements taken by the airport at various locations in Surrey show that aircraft noise is not a significant contributor to the overall noise environment in the community. In South Surrey, for example, over 49 days this spring, only 12 aircraft that were arriving or departing Vancouver exceeded an established threshold, which was set at 60 decibels for 10 seconds. During that same period, there were over 3,000 non-aircraft community sources that exceeded that threshold.
There are things that can be done in some instances to design air routes that are sensitive to the community. There are sometimes options to place routes over more industrial areas, or over water, where the impact on a community is lessened. But in many cases, Nav Canada cannot make aircraft noise disappear; we can only relocate it.
The complexities of air traffic make it impossible to meet every neighbourhood's desire to be free of aircraft noise. While our employees are called controllers, there is much we don't control. This is a shared jurisdiction and a shared problem, with significant limitations and no easy solutions. So we must work with our partners to be good neighbours in the communities we serve.
It is now Nav Canada corporate policy that we will consult with communities when routing changes are proposed within terminal air space that would have a material impact on noise exposure in the community.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to take members' questions.
I would like to thank the Nav Canada officials, along with Transport Canada.
Contrary to what was said in the past hour, the noise is not only from the takeoffs or landings, the way we see it in Surrey, particularly the residents of South Surrey, Fleetwood—Port Kells, and Surrey North. Even though it's not an issue in my riding, I'm the only MP who was approached by the local people, and I'm certain they have talked to Nav Canada as well.
In fact, the changes in the past have created a lot more problems, a lot more noise, and residents have had to move out of the area, because the quiet communities became noisy when those noise paths were put in place.
My question to you is why was there no public consultation? You say there is now a public consultation process in place. Why was this process not in place before? You said you met with residents, but the residents still feel and say you have done basically nothing to reduce those noise levels.
:
My question to you, Mr. President, is on the health issues.
Health Canada was never consulted. I say this because Madam Jennings' staff have met with Health Canada officials, who said that a health assessment is never triggered when there is a change in path of the airplanes until there is physical infrastructure in place where federal funding has been granted. That is the only time a health review comes into place.
Would you like to see such a review, because there are health risks?
I can tell you that people like Hannah Newman in Surrey have brought forward these issues, and all of the task force studies, the Surrey task force, the Richmond advisory...they all suggest there are health risks involved from this noise.
Would you like to see legislation in place that Health Canada should be part of the process when these paths are determined?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crichton, I have a number of questions to ask you, and I would like you to send me your answers in writing.
Is it true that it is possible to further optimize landing approaches and take-off parameters so as to minimize noise? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Can you submit your recommendations to us respecting the main urban airports, particularly Dorval? Should regulatory or legislative measures be adopted to assist you in that respect? If so, which ones? If not, please tell us why.
Mr. Eley, ADM is the only airport authority—and tell me if I'm wrong—that manages its own complaints. In the case of all other airports, it is the Department of Transport that receives and manages complaints. How is it that you agree to that? Furthermore, I met with Mr. Boivin, vice-president. He told me not to oppose the idea of complaints being managed by the department or by another organization. Why doesn't this situation seem to trouble you?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am hiding back here.
I have to say welcome to all of you here. I'm pleased to have you here.
I can't say this has been the biggest issue in the Northwest Territories, but it strikes me that it must be for you in the urban areas, with these very large airports.
I'm curious about your procedures. In Vancouver, when you initiated changes, was there an environmental effects department within the Vancouver airport structure for you to work with in looking at route changes and at the impacts for the surrounding areas? Obviously, there is some authority that lies here.
You've indicated that you made these changes and then were surprised by the results, so the people who were in charge of noise management obviously didn't come into your decision-making.
:
I can only repeat my answer.
[English]
Because there is an indirect obligation, the obligation under the statute, which has to be respected, Air Canada must include in its articles of continuance the provisions that are articulated in section 6.1 of ACPPA. Those requirements include that its articles of continuance maintain the three overhaul and operational centres in the three locations. They also speak to the head office and to the foreign ownership provisions. All of those are in the articles of continuance.
The obligation has been met if the articles of continuance include those obligations, and they do. From a Government of Canada responsibility perspective, that obligation, as it is included in ACPPA, has been respected.
The follow-through of that obligation is a private governance matter between the corporation and its shareholders. It is up to the shareholders to determine if that obligation has been met and to bring a complaint if they so choose under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
:
We do have a fair bit of jurisprudence on this issue.
The word “maintain” was a very contentious issue when it came to the disposition of constitutional jurisdictions with the operation of various transportation services. In effect, in B.C., for example, the word “maintain” does not appear in the operation of the transfer of railway services. It just simply says that Canada will assume ownership of transportation services. Therefore, that responsibility can be extinguished.
Where the term “maintain” is used in the constitutional language, that has been interpreted by the courts to establish an ongoing operational requirement. So the use of “maintain” in the statutory language of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, if we were to use that legal language as we have in the constitutional interpretation, would imply that Air Canada has the obligation to continue to operate Air Canada-based facilities, if my limited paralegal training would be correct.
I appreciate having you here. It's late at night.
Mr. Crichton and Mr. Eley, you've had a little bit of a break, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions.
You know, panel, we really are just trying to get to the “plain” truth here—whichever spelling you decide you want to use.
I live in York Region, and we have a slightly different issue going on in York Region with the Buttonville Airport, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I have lived in York Region long enough to have seen Toronto move north. York Region has expanded, and what was never intended to be an urban airport has suddenly become an urban airport. Of course, I flew out of the Toronto airport when it was still called Malton and there was no Mississauga—it was Port Credit—and Brampton was a long way away.
Many of these urban centres have grown up around these smaller airports, and we really do have quite a conundrum right now in York Region because the Buttonville Airport has been the only accessible airport for emergency landings for York Region. There are quite a number of corporate headquarters that have grown up in the Markham area and into Richmond Hill, so quite a number of those corporate headquarters have maintained corporate airplanes at the Buttonville Airport. Now, for a variety of reasons—and I'm not saying the growth around has been the sole problem—we're losing the Buttonville Airport. It's being sold. It's a private airport and they have the right to do that, but I am absolutely confident that one of the reasons that has come into play here has been the noise that has been a problem in the area.
Nav Canada says they do a consultation process; Transport Canada says they do a consultation process. Can you expand on what the consultation process looks like? Are the municipalities involved with that? When growth is happening in an area, are developers part of that consultation process? And do you consult with each other? Do you combine your reports, or are they two separate areas?
Does growth change the patterns for the routing? I suppose Nav Canada would have to answer that one.