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?