Evidence of meeting #33 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kristina Namiesniowski  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I call the meeting to order.

We're now out of camera. The official meeting, meeting 33, shall commence.

We have a motion by Monsieur Guimond.

Monsieur Guimond, go ahead, please.

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to keep this short, as I don't want to drag out the discussions needlessly. The motion is fairly clear; it's self-explanatory. What's more, I've had the opportunity to speak with most colleagues in this room about noise caused by airport operations in urban areas. A number of colleagues broached the subject first, since the noise issue is causing problems.

Each year, a number of Canadians file complaints. They claim that they are inconvenienced and that their peace and quiet is disturbed. We know that quality of life is becoming increasingly important and that airports are not always located in agricultural or isolated regions. Municipalities have policies aimed at reducing urban sprawl and increasing urban densification in order to get the most out of their municipal budgets. More and more Canadians are now moving to locations near airports or have been living near these facilities for years. Their peace and quiet is affected by the countless landings and takeoffs.

In certain areas, small sightseeing aircraft and private planes add to the daily number of landings and takeoffs. We're talking about an increasingly popular hobby or career. Since the number of small private aircraft is rising, the number of flying schools is also increasing. Air carriers have responsibilities. Airports also wish to make their operations profitable. In 1995, the government began transferring the management of airports to regional authorities.Various interest groups, provincial and municipal governments, users, and so on, are represented on the administrative council.

We have been through a similar situation. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport from 1993 to 1997 during which time the Government of Canada transferred responsibility for the management of airports and ports. This motion should be adopted by the committee members, especially since it concerns a country-wide issue. We would potentially go on tour, meet with regional representatives, hold meetings outside of the Ottawa ivory tower. We could go on site and have the opportunity to determine the scope of the noise problem ourselves.

I think we can agree on the fact that we are not too inconvenienced by airplane noise in this room. I doubt that any of you have heard these noises, since there is a safety perimeter to be respected for flights over Parliament Hill. It would be a good idea to have a few meetings in the regions to be able to study the issue. That's what I wanted to bring up.

Like you, I have taken part in discussions. The meeting is now public. Today, we will begin with the Minister of Public Security. Some of our witnesses wish to speak to Bill C-42. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed would be.

Other committees have already proceeded in the following way: dividing the committee into two, while respecting quorum and the membership breakdown typical of a minority government. This way, we can hold hearings on Bill C-42, and, at the same time, hold hearings on the noise issue.

As it stands now, given the number of witnesses we'll have for Bill C-42, we might have to consider meeting on Christmas Eve, December 24, or on the morning of January 1. That's not what I want.

I think that we should begin discussions in the near future on the serious issue of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Merci, monsieur Guimond.

Mr. McCallum.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you.

I'd like to propose what I hope will be viewed as a friendly amendment to broaden the scope of the report somewhat. I would propose that the motion read: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Committee study —and this is the new part—the regulatory framework for airports in Canada, with special attention to, but not limited to, the consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas and that it report its observations and recommendations to the House.

The intent of this amendment is that there are certain important issues, I think, with regard to the federal government's ability to regulate airports, noise being an important case, but not necessarily limited to noise.

So that is my proposed amendment.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Guimond.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Unfortunately, my assistant was talking to me about my list of witnesses for Bill C-42, which I just passed on to the clerk. So, I missed what you said.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Shall I repeat it?

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I think you should.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

The amendment is to add the following words: “the regulatory framework for airports in Canada, with special attention to, but not limited to, the consequences of noise”.

So it says, let us study the regulatory framework for airports with special attention to, but not limited to, the consequences of noise.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Where are you adding those words? How will the passage be incorporated in your version?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I could read out the whole thing.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Please.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

It reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Committee study the regulatory framework for airports in Canada, with special attention to, but not limited to, the consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas and that it report its observations and recommendations to the House.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

I yield the floor to Mrs. Mourani.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Okay, we'll hear from Madame Mourani.

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Chair, I have a question for my colleague.

I would like to know what he means by “regulatory framework.”

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. McCallum.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I'm told that the federal government at the present time has very limited powers to regulate airports and so I think that, in the context of examining what sort of regulatory framework could be applied to the issue of noise, it would be a good idea to look more generally at the federal government's regulatory framework or capacity to regulate airports at this time, because we may find areas other than noise that are important examples of limited capacity on the part of the federal government to regulate airports today.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I have Mr. Dhaliwal, and then I'll go to Monsieur Guimond.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Guimond and Mr. McCallum for bringing forward this motion and the friendly amendment to this motion. I agree with Mr. McCallum, because when we were travelling, Marlene Jennings had an opportunity to come to my riding of Newton—North Delta, and in fact—

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I have Mr. Watson on a point of order.

Noon

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Has Mr. McCallum's amendment in fact been accepted as a friendly amendment or not? He was referring to it, and I wanted to be sure whether it's—

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Guimond, I would have to ask you first whether you would accept that as a friendly amendment.

Noon

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

No. The motion needs to be revised. I feel strongly about the passage “the consequences of noise caused.” If we start debating the regulatory framework, we could get sidetracked. Mr. McCallum said that the regulatory framework could involve issues other than noise. I think that expanding the framework would just dilute the issue. I don't think that the amendment is a friendly one.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.