Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Martin Eley]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Now I'll welcome our guests from Nav Canada.

John, do you want to start? You've obviously been here enough times to know the process of opening comments. Then we'll move right to questions.

I have asked everybody to stay, because I know Monsieur Guimond is on his way and he has some questions for our other witnesses. I appreciate your staying.

Please begin.

[John Crichton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, NAV CANADA]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

We'll open the floor. As I said earlier, all three witnesses are here to answer questions, so please feel free.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

[John Crichton]

In the past, we've made many changes in terminal manoeuvring areas in large cities. These generally take place a fair distance from the airport where the aircraft are at higher altitudes. In the past, we have made these changes and there have never been complaints. So, quite frankly, it didn't dawn on us that there would be any noise impacts in this case. We were, quite frankly, taken by surprise afterwards to find there were people with complaints.

We listened to the people and made the changes we could make, consistent with our other obligation to have safe approaches and departures in the Vancouver area, which is a quite complex area. It is probably the busiest terminal area in Canada, with all of the other airports there. We also instituted and paid for the noise monitoring.

Quite frankly, the only independent and objective standard I know of to gauge airport noise is to in fact retain engineering firms to do the noise monitoring and see exactly what happens over time. So that's what we've done. I think the results of that monitoring now show that certainly on the basis of those objective standards, aircraft noise is not really intrusive in those communities. I think that's the best we can do in trying to mitigate it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

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?

[John Crichton]

At Nav Canada, we really have no role to play in the policy issues. Up until now, even our role with the airports has been a technical one. So when the airports are looking at this in their own noise consultative committees, they will come up with suggested ways of mitigating the noise. We will look at it strictly from the point of view of air traffic control to see whether or not it is feasible from a safety point of view. That is really the limit of our role, and we don't really have a policy role beyond that at all.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Eley, would you want to have this policy or some legislation in place so that we can have Health Canada's input into these changes?

[Martin Eley]

I think the points of Nav Canada relate back to some of my opening remarks at the start of this session. We deal with noise exposure forecasts, and I explained at the time that any level greater than 35 was an issue.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

All I'm asking you about is the following. Right now, Health Canada is not part of any consultations or the policy implementations. Until there's new funding by the government in the infrastructure, the health and environmental studies are not triggered by any of the local changes.

I would like to see legislation in place that Health Canada be part of that process. Would you agree with that?

[Martin Eley]

I think that's something we would have to look at.

The point I wanted to make was that the noise levels at altitude are unlikely to cross any known limits. So obviously any involvement by Health Canada would be appropriate. But compared with the noise in the vicinity of an airport at altitude, you just do not achieve the same noise levels on the ground. So it is unlikely to pass that sort of threshold. I think that's what we've just heard from Nav Canada: it's never really been an issue at altitude.

From some of the changing routes, there may have been a change in noise levels because the areas were not on those flight paths before. But I think you would find they're a long way away from any threshold numbers that typically generate any sort of need to mitigate them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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?

[Martin Eley]

It was my understanding that the process for ADM is the same.

The process isn't really the same in the case of ADM. It's not a direct delegation. We're asking ADM to have a consultation process.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

But this isn't done that way elsewhere in Canada. In the case of other airports, complaints are submitted to the Department of Transport. ADM, on the other hand, receives complaints and manages them. What is the reason for that particular characteristic? Why did you include that in the lease?

[Martin Eley]

All airports accept all complaints.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Pardon me? You can speak in English. That won't trouble me.

[Martin Eley]

The airports are responsible for managing the noise procedures and they are the ones who are responsible for accepting the complaints within the context of the airport.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

That's not what I was told. I was told that ADM was the only one that managed complaints and that elsewhere it was the Department of Transport that managed them. You're telling me that's not the case.

[Martin Eley]

I need to check my facts on that. It seems as if we are at cross-purposes. I'd like to verify that point.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I'd like a written response, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do you have a comment, John?

[John Crichton]

I just want to clarify something.

I'll offer you something in return for your question, but Nav Canada is not responsible for designing noise abatement procedures. We look at the ones that are developed by airports, and sometimes those of airports along with airlines together, to see if they are feasible from an air traffic control point of view.

But what I can send to the committee is a sample of various noise abatement procedures in place at various airports in Canada, and then you can see what they look like and how they are constructed. But we don't actually do that ourselves and we are not an expert on that, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Madame Lavallée.