Transport Committee on June 16th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Crichton, when I look at the air traffic management, whether it's Mirabel airport, Bathurst Airport, close to my riding of Newton—North Delta, the YVR, we find similar complaints, whether you go to Surrey or you come to Montreal. I'm holding a town hall meeting on July 9 in my riding of Newton—North Delta, and it's open. You're welcome, in addition to Nav Canada, to attend that.

When I read the study done by Nav Canada to do with the air traffic management in my area, I had some questions arising. Why is it that Nav Canada cannot do what other jurisdictions in other countries do to implement noise-related corridors to minimize noise in the densely populated areas?

[John Crichton]

Well, actually, you raise an issue. There is, as you know quite well, an issue in the Greater Vancouver area, and particularly in Surrey and North Delta, with some changes we made in recent years to the approach and departure paths for Vancouver International Airport. Those changes, by the way, are right now saving the airlines $20 million a year in fuel and--I've forgotten the number--thousands of metric tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions. However, that has upset some residents who feel they weren't adequately consulted. They now are experiencing aircraft noise that they didn't before. So we listened to that. We made some changes to those patterns as a result of that.

The number of noise complaints we have received since we made those changes has dropped dramatically. The issue has not gone away, so we have funded noise monitoring stations in the areas, along with the YVR airport, which is also funding them. We've also recently put up an interactive website that shows all of the air traffic movements in real time in that area, and it identifies the flights and has a process for people. If they are bothered by a flight, they can identify specifically which one it is because they can replay the tape and right on the exact time.

However, on noise monitoring, we have not had any incidents yet where any aircraft, other than I think on one or two rare occasions, actually penetrated the internationally accepted levels of noise, as being more than just the urban background noise. We've certainly detected lots of other noise events that are not aviation related.

Having said all that, there are still people with a lot of concerns. We're continuing to meet with those groups, with the various municipal councils. I'll take your invitation for July 9 under advisement. We'll see if we can send somebody there. We are sensitive to them. We've also committed that in future we will do more consultation ahead of time with various communities if we feel there are going to be any adverse effects.

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

When I talk to my community, to the people who are working on this issue in the community and are putting hundreds and thousands of volunteer hours into this particular issue, the response I get from them is totally different. They indicate that it's a one-way dialogue and that your department is not open, transparent, and willing to sit with them and have a discussion so the stakeholders can be involved in this particular issue.

[John Crichton]

Well, Mr. Dhaliwal, I will have our people who are handling this contact you to hear your views on it and to get some feedback from you, number one, but also to show you the consultations we have done, the reports we've done ourselves and dealt with, the meetings we've gone to, and as well, to give you the results of the noise monitoring, which is, by the way, the only independent, objective way you can deal with this issue.

Quite frankly, there are people who object if they look up and see an airplane, even if they can't hear it. They just don't like the sight of an airplane. The only way you can sort of cut through everything is to have.... These noise monitors are run by independent companies, not us. They are scientific engineering companies. They produce a 24-hour precise measurement of all the noise. They can even identify where the noise came from or what it was. Those monitors are indicating there is not an issue, but I think we need to share that a bit more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, thank you.

Mr. Crichton, in a letter addressed to you by Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, L-3 Communications, Hélibellule and Federal Express,we read the following:

The current situation has an impact on the operations and the finances of the users of Mirabel airport [...] Bombardier and Pratt &Whitney are about to begin building new factories in this sector [...] Consequently, air and ground traffic at Mirabel airport will continue increasing over the coming years and will become even more complex. Moreover, we must once again emphasize the severe apprehensions of the users for their safety.

Do you think that these people sent you this letter on a whim?

[John Crichton]

No. What I'm saying is that we have been meeting with the companies you mentioned, the couple of companies that, as far as I know, have not been part of the group asking for the tower. My understanding is that Bombardier, Bell Helicopter, and Pratt & Whitney are the only three asking for the tower. We are meeting with them. We will continue to meet with them.

We are trying to validate--and this is with Transport Canada involved--whether or not there is a safety issue. I'm simply saying to the committee at this point that so far, in everything we've seen, we have not been able to identify a safety issue. That may change. A week from now, they may produce something we're not aware of.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

What would it take to make you change your mind: a collision between two airplanes or between a CF-18 and a plane used for flight training?

[John Crichton]

Well, no. As people in our business do all over the world, there are very well-established standards for determining risk in our business that are very detailed and quite accurate, and we are applying those standards. That is the way we go about doing these things.

We are trying to find out, in listening to this group, if there is something unique that we're not taking into account or something unusual happening here. So we are listening, and we're going to look at that. In the meantime, should Mirabel grow, as a lot of people hope it will and as we hope it will, and if it becomes busier again and the air space becomes more complex again, then you may see a tower come back just for that reason alone. But in the meantime--

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You consider that it would take 60,000 flights, but there are only 25,000. In your mind, given that everyone else is paying while these companies are not paying, you will never give them that gift. I do not believe you. You will wait until there are 60,000 flights before paying that money.

You know that one of the two incidents occurred because a CF-18 had to come back and it could have collided with the other plane. It did not happen, because it succeeded in avoiding the emergency landing and in avoiding the accident. In your analysis of the situation, you say that there are no safety problems. Are you waiting for two airplanes to collide before you react?

Things will become ever more complicated as you know. These industries are developing equipment, performing tests and they need to come back to the landing strips very quickly. Moreover, many emergency situations could occur.

You say there are more flights in Toulouse or Seattle. This is fine. However, these companies are developing systems and they have certain needs. These people wrote you this letter because they need a control tower. This is not a whim on their part. You simply want them to pay you $500,000, so settle it with the government.

If there is a safety problem, let us solve it, because we must ensure the development of these companies and these industries. Who will pay for this? You are entitled to tell me that you do not want to pay, but tell us at least that there is a safety problem. You are saying that there is no safety problem. Are you waiting for an accident to happen?

[John Crichton]

We have not been able to identify a safety problem.

Now, you mentioned a specific incident involving a CF-18 that had a bird strike and had to return. There would not have been any difference with the control tower there on how that situation resolved itself. It was not a safety issue.

Every day in this country, aircraft run into mechanical problems at airports that have flight service stations and they have to return to the airport, and at airports that are busier than Mirabel. So in terms of that specific incident, with due respect, it was not a safety issue that would have made any difference between the tower or the flight service station.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Crichton, you know that the problem is not due to the fact that he collided with some birds, but to the fact that there was a training aircraft on the strip that he could have collided with when he came back. It is irrelevant that he collided with a bird, or that he had a problem in flight, or that this was a test and that he was asked to come back.

He could have collided with an airplane because you were not able to detect it. That is the problem. You told this committee that a control tower is used to avoid collisions between airplanes. It could have happened. Please be honest at least on this point. It did not happen, that's great, but the next time, it could happen.

[John Crichton]

So is the flight service station; in that event, if the pilot chose to declare an emergency and say he had to land right away, the flight service specialist would have told the other aircraft there was an emergency coming in on the runway and to please get off. It's no different from what the controller would have said. That's all I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Brown, very briefly.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'll go very quickly.

Mr. Crichton, I wonder if you could tell us if there are any other airports where you have the same kind of situation, where you've got the potential for other partners to be covering the costs. Or is Mirabel totally unique in Canada?

[John Crichton]

As a public airport, in the large sense that you understand it, it's probably unique. And I don't want to pick on the member for Fort McMurray, but in terms of the development of the oil sands, we have reached agreement with a number of the oil companies who have built jet strips north of Fort McMurray, within the tar sands. We are providing commercial services to them of various types, which they are paying for, because they need them and they're outside the norm.

So yes, it is, but we have other commercial arrangements in different parts of the country for different types of services, a lot of them with airports. In terms of public airports, Mirabel is a bit unique, because it is a very small, cohesive group of stakeholders who are asking for the tower, and others aren't. It just creates this situation that I described earlier.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

But in other places, your agreements are working well.

[John Crichton]

Oh yes, and we're quite free to reach commercial arrangements like this. We do it all the time. We'd be happy to do it.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I'll thank our guests for being here. We appreciate your input.

We're going to take a quick break for our next guest to be seated and then we'll continue.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back to the second part, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of high-speed rail in Canada.

I want to advise the committee that we have set aside about 15 minutes at the end of this meeting to review the subcommittee's discussions from the previous meeting. If we can keep our questions succinct, we'll be fine.

Joining us now from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, we have Mr. Michael Roschlau, president and chief executive officer.

I welcome you. I know you know the routine, so I'll ask you to present.

[Michael Roschlau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to comment about the complex issue of high-speed rail in Canada. I say complex because in order for high-speed rail to be a successful initiative in this country there are really several factors to consider.

First, in order for high-speed rail to thrive and have a truly transformational impact on Canada, it absolutely must be complementary with public transit. In other words, high-speed rail has to be integrated with the local and regional public transit systems across the country. When you consider travelling from city to city, there has to be sustainable public transit at both ends.

The TGV in France,

the ICE in Germany and the AVE in Spain work because they connect outlying citizens directly with world-class public transit systems in French, German, and Spanish cities. It's the same in Japan; it's the same in South Korea. High-speed trains without connectivity to transit are trains to nowhere. France, Germany, and Spain invested heavily in public transit long before considering high-speed rail.

The second point I would like to highlight is the issue of cost-benefit and value for investment. A question that repeatedly comes to mind is this. What is the best balance for investing in our public transportation network for the future?

Resources need to be allocated optimally in order to assure that our transportation systems are meeting the needs of all Canadians. President Obama in the United States has raised the level of debate and excitement over high-speed rail in North America. This is a positive step, but it also needs a note of caution.

Many MPs and policy-makers would be stunned to know that in the U.S. the federal government provides close to $10 billion of direct, dedicated investment in public transit every year. This is long-term sustainable funding. Canada needs to consider this model before investing in high-speed rail in isolation.

Canadians are continuing to choose public transit at unprecedented levels. Last year Canadian transit ridership exceeded previous highs for the sixth consecutive year. A total of 1.82 billion transit trips were taken across Canada in 2008. This means that, on average, every Canadian uses public transit 60 times per year, or more than one trip per week for every woman, man, and child in the country.

The increased use of public transit shows that this service is growing. If we want to maintain the growth and encourage more people to use public transit, we must make investments for the future and on a long-term basis to improve the service.

While our transit systems continue to serve more riders than ever, they are also facing the need to rehabilitate and replace aging infrastructure. The most recent report on Canadian transit infrastructure needs has estimated the total requirements over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 at $40 billion, including both renewal and expansion.

Public transit should not be in direct competition with a high speed train, but it should rather be a potential partner.

Transit, ladies and gentlemen, should not be in direct competition with high-speed rail, but a potential complementary partner. The question for policy-makers, however, is clear: which investment will impact the lives of most Canadians and invigorate our economy? Is it interurban high-speed rail or an investment in local and regional community transit, the engine of our urban economies?

Lastly, we have to explore the issue of high-speed rail's overall benefit to Canadians and to the country. How many Canadians will be directly advantaged by a high-speed rail system?

Public transit touches the lives of everyday Canadians, and your constituents, in an exceptional number of ways. We have the young couple who take the bus or train to work every day. There are families who depend on transit to access health care. Students, our country's future leaders, need to take the bus to and from school each and every day. All of these are examples of Canadians who depend on public transit to fulfill their everyday mobility needs. Indeed, we have to rise to our country's economic, social, and environmental challenges.

Contrast this with the objectives of high-speed rail, which primarily would facilitate intercity transport in a few key corridors, which for most people is not a day-to-day concern.

With unlimited resources, both a high-speed rail system and an efficient and effective public transit network would be of great benefit to this country. However, with limited resources, we must ensure that the immediate and future mobility needs of Canadians are met first. What's needed is a bold vision to ensure that as we move forward to build a better Canada, a fair and equitable distribution of transit infrastructure resources is provided.

Targeted public transit investments will make a real difference in allowing transit systems across Canada to meet the growing demand and expectations of Canadians. Such investment is a powerful benefit for the environment, for the economy, and for quality of life.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you for your testimony.

My questions may be a bit different. Can there be any synergy between both systems? I think that public attitudes towards public transit could undergo great changes. I think that by having the same means of transit between cities and within cities, we could be more efficient, if we convince users that this is their most efficient means of transit.

I understand the limited resources, but I would like to hear a little bit more about this. High-speed rail, I think, represents a conviction on someone's part, once it goes forward, that we're going to change the means and ways of transporting people. Just reflecting the community that I'm familiar with, I think that still needs to take hold for local transportation as well.

I'm just wondering if there are studies. Have discussions taken place between your members and some of the proponents in times past--because we know this is a recurring idea--in terms of some of those mutual benefits? I'm sure your members are chasing their current costs and their renovation, their renouvellement.

Overall, I would think that CUTA has a view of where the country needs to head, whether it is green-inspired or just about efficiency of goods and services and people-inspired. Could you address that for us in terms of some of the synergies? I think we hear the caution, we hear the preference that we might expect, but I wonder if those synergies are well understood. I guess that's what I'm trying to get to.

[Michael Roschlau]

You are putting some excellent questions. Thank you.

We have just completed nine months of work on visioning the future, on trying to get a sense of what Canadian communities will look like in 30 years, and how public transport, particularly local community and regional transportation, can best serve those needs.

We've learned about an aging population. We've learned about yet increasing concentrations of Canadians in cities. We've learned about the difficulty of access to cheap energy and mobility and the need for more collective transportation of all kinds and about the willingness of Canadians to move away from low-density to more mixed-use, higher-density, compact communities.

I think ultimately that's what it's going to come down to--where Canadians will live, where Canadians will work, where we go to school, where we play, which determines our transportation needs. It's clear from all the research we've seen that has gone into this visioning exercise that the vast majority of travel is going to be regional and local. It's going to be within and around the communities where people live. But the willingness to move from personal to collective transportation, from driving alone in a car, for example, to riding together in a bus or a train, is going to be driven by the locational advantages of access.

To me, getting to a high-speed train is going to depend on whether there is an easy way for me to get to that station by transit, by bus, by taxi, or by commuter train. Or am I going to drive? And if I drive, we're back to the same model. Once I'm in my car, how far do I take it? Do I take it to the airport or to a train station, or do I drive all the way to my destination?

So it's a complex question you've asked, and I've probably presented you with a complex answer, but it's very interrelated. I think people's willingness to change their lifestyle to be more sustainable is there. It's going to be up to us to provide those integrated systems of land use, and that's a municipal question of where we grow and how we grow our communities to what sort of transportation systems we put in place to serve the needs of those residents.