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.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, the rule applies equally to every country that has any overflights of the continental U.S. The only countries that have an exemption for domestic flights that may overfly the U.S. are Canada and Mexico.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have to end it there. Unfortunately, the minister has other commitments.
Perhaps we'll keep an open book, suggesting that if we have further questions, we'll invite you back.
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're going to take just a two-minute recess while the witnesses remove themselves. Then we'll go back to our previous discussion with Mr. Guimond.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay, we're back.
When we left the discussion, there was talk around a friendly amendment. I am advised that there may be one on the table.
Mr. McCallum.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
This, I believe, is a truly friendly amendment—having consulted my colleagues—and comes in two parts.
The last part of the motion says, “report its observations and recommendations to the House”. We would change it to say: “report its observations and recommendations, including recommendations relating to an appropriate regulatory response, to the House”.
The second part of the amendment, which I have in French, adds, after “consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas”, this phrase: “ainsi que toute autre problématique liée à la qualité de vie de la population”.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What I'm recommending is something similar. I have no problem with the noise study. I just.... I mean, we have study after study after study, and none has been completed. That is a concern to me.
I would rather see us focus on something. If it's noise that we focus on, then we focus on noise, we deal with it and get it done, and we report it to the House, if necessary.
The “if necessary” is the reason I'm saying this. We as a committee have studied this issue before. I'm familiar with some issues that are going on in Quebec, for instance, with noise and small planes. I think Turtle Bay is one of them, and some different areas.
But what I'm recommending is a little bit different. I don't even think we need to have a notice of motion and pass it. I'm fully prepared to sit down at an extra meeting, at a different time, to study the issue of noise and to start with the department to ask what the situation is today with the regulations and what we can do about it. My understanding, after studying this before, is that there is not really a lot we can do, except to make recommendations to airport authorities to restrict the hours of services and different things like that.
But before we do that, let's take a look at what's happening with the airline industry in Canada. I have a copy of “The Economic Impacts of the Member Carriers of the National Airlines Council of Canada”. I asked for a copy in French, but they didn't have a copy in French. So I can't table it, but I'm going to continue to look for a copy in French.
If you look at what airlines contribute to the Canadian economy, it's unbelievable, and if we start throwing up restrictions on the industry itself—which is fragile, to say the least, especially Air Canada, if you look at their books—I am nervous about that.
I think what we should do and what I would propose—and I'm fully prepared to support a motion, but I don't think it's necessary, because I think all parties are unanimous on this—is to study airport noise; to have one day and have the departmental officials here and ask them the questions: what can we do about it; what is the situation right now?
Then, if we need to continue with that study...which I would suggest we don't, unless it's a political exercise and you want to hear from particular towns and reeves and mayors, etc., and then that's what we do--a political exercise. But if it's an exercise to change the regulations or to change the legislative authority to deal with these things, I think it's going to be a much bigger study.
What I'm recommending is that we have an extra meeting, that we bring the department in, we sit down, and we talk about noise. And then the next day, if Mr. McCallum wants to study something else in relation to the regulations or whether the regulations are broad enough or the legislation is broad enough, let's study that.
Let's deal with noise, if that's what it takes, and let's find out what the situation is in Canada. Then, after we figure out what the situation is, if you want to have four or five meetings and have extra meetings, I'm prepared to sit until midnight every night next week, if you want to. But let's not grab this additional study along with our other six or eight studies and the five pieces of legislation that are before us and the other pieces of legislation that are going to come in and just have a study sitting in the background on which nothing is done.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Well, I think I would still be in favour of passing this motion, because I think what Mr. Jean is proposing is not terribly different. Presumably, if we do conduct this study, perhaps the departmental people would be first. The committee is always the master of its own destiny, and if the committee believes, after hearing departmental officials, that we call it off, we can.
So I don't really see a conflict between what Mr. Jean is saying and passing this motion.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As Mr. Jean mentioned, there has been study after study after study. It's not only issues to do with Quebec. I can tell you that where I come from, in British Columbia, the people of Surrey, Delta, and Richmond are facing the same issues of quality of life.
Mr. Guimond said that the committee should travel, go out, and reach out to those people so that we can have public input into the studies Mr. Jean is mentioning, as we have in previous years.
I had the opportunity, as I mentioned earlier, to take Madam Marlene Jennings into my riding of Newton—North Delta, and she met with the stakeholders. She met with the councillors and mayors and different authorities, and we came up with this: there is no opportunity for public input. And the roles of Nav Canada, Transport Canada, and local airport authorities are all blurred. There's no clear delineation of responsibilities among different departments.
That's why this is a very important study, because it affects health. And it's not only the flights during the day. In fact there are the cargo flights at night where we live, in the part of Canada I come from, the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. That's a key issue.
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really want to urge my colleagues to take this motion seriously and to support it. The situation in certain regions in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada, for that matter, is very serious. I would imagine some Quebec and Canadian cities are in the same boat. I'm talking about Quebec because that's what I know best.
In my riding, the noise issue has been a major problem for several years. However, it's important to note all the other effects of airport proximity on people's daily lives. We're talking about noise, but the environment is affected as well.
Some people have told me about dust and residues. Some are even saying that there are liquid residues, but we need to look into all those claims. A study would provide us with a balanced snapshot of not only the current situation, but also its effect on Canadians.
There's one thing we shouldn't forget to do. We can invite department or ADM representatives, for instance, and they could talk to us about decibels and about noise, but they'll give us an “administrative“ view of the problem. I think my colleague Mr. Guimond was right in saying that we should meet with those affected and talk to them. We should also talk to their representatives to get an idea of what takes place on a daily basis, so that we can determine if health or the environment could be affected.
Public health or environmental experts could probably talk to us about this issue. They could provide us with an accurate portrait of the situation so that we can draft a report with interesting recommendations. That would enable us to either resolve the issue or to find ways to do so.
People in my riding have had about enough, not just of airplane noise, but also of everything that implies. We're talking about airplane noise, but it has gotten so bad that people can't eat on their balconies in the summer. This example may seem overly simplistic, but it is part of people's daily lives. Some of them can't sleep at night because they are regularly awakened by airplanes. These kinds of disturbances can drive people crazy.
Therefore, I urge you to begin working on this study and, as my colleague said, to go to the regions to meet with people. It would be my pleasure to welcome you in my riding and introduce you to many people who, depending on the day, may be either in a good or in a bad mood. They could tell you what they think about their daily lives.
I invite you to come to my riding and am prepared to bring together about a hundred people from Ahuntsic and even Cartierville, so that you can meet them. All they would do is talk to you.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
I have a few people on the list, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting today and we'll pick up this conversation in the last 15 minutes of the next meeting, okay?
The meeting is adjourned.
