Evidence of meeting #42 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 airport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
You took responsibility for one issue, which is from your presentation; that is only when the violations occur and then you bring in your enforcement on the regulations.
How many violations of Transport Canada's noise regulations occurred and how many violators received sanctions? How many could have gone undetected?
7:40 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
In 2010 there were 12 violations of noise abatement procedures. We imposed fines in the range of $3,500 to $5,000 in those particular cases.
Over the past 10 years, there have been 233 violations. We imposed monetary penalties in approximately 95% of those cases against individual aircraft owners and air operators. The fines range from $10 up to $20,000 for an infraction.
With the remaining 5%, other enforcement action was taken. There may have been extenuating circumstances. I don't have all of that detail.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Can you tell me about the coordination? You say you are not concerned, one, about the noise abatement or what the airport authorities do. But in fact we see that Transport Canada is the umbrella that should be looking into all of those eventually because you are the one who created those regulations, even though Nav Canada brings in the flight paths and the airport authorities are the ones that manage those noise abatement procedures.
Why is there no coordination? And why is there no public input into this?
7:40 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I believe, historically, the focus on noise has been where the biggest issues have been, which is typically the landing and take-off phases, which, clearly, is why the airports have the primary responsibility.
Beyond that, generally speaking, there are not noise requirements that have been established. So it is focused at this point.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eley, I'm going to ask you a question, but I want you to answer me in writing. You aren't required to answer me now.
The question is this: what regulatory measure or element could be adopted or amended to reduce the noise associated with airport activities in urban areas?
I would also like you to do this specifically for ADM. As ADM concerns me, I would like to have the specific characteristics for ADM.
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
All right. Thank you.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I would also like to go back to the noise issue. It was explained to me that large aircraft normally make more noise than small aircraft. Others have told me that's not true, that small aircraft can make as much noise as the big airliners, or more. What do you think? In your experience, is that true?
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I can say that all aircraft comply with the rules. It depends on the moment during the flight. Large aircraft have more efficient engines, particularly with regard to noise. These are high by-pass ratio engines. They are less noisy, but that depends on power levels. It changes in flight, depending on the flight profile. This is probably less variable in the case of small aircraft. There are fewer maximums and variables in total.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
For the average person, can we say that some small aircraft make as much noise as the big ones?
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Noise levels are more comparable, but not necessarily higher.
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes. For example, large aircraft are probably less noisy than small aircraft on arrival, but the reverse is true on departure.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you.
Furthermore, an environmental study states that, in the approach phase, if the aircraft were at an altitude of 1,200 metres, it would be less noisy. Are we talking about an altitude of 1,200 metres at Montreal airport?
December 7th, 2010 / 7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
The approach profile is really determined by safety practices. Altitude varies from one aircraft to another. That depends on how it's designed. On arrival, we do not control the noise issue: it's a physical matter, in a way. However, we take that into account when we assess each aircraft as a part of the approval process.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
To a certain degree, do you consider what is being done outside Canada? I know that the airport in London, for example, has really implemented noise abatement measures.
Are you taking that into consideration in order to improve the situation, the best practices that prevail outside Canada, whether it be at Montreal's airports or other airports dealing with this problem?
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
The challenge, in my view, comes mainly from the fact that most noise emissions are generated in flight. There are not a lot of physical means to alter that situation.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
They're managing to do so at certain airports. That's the case in London.
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, that's the case around the airport and on the ground, but not in flight. I believe that a lot of changes concern ground operations.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
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?
7:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I don't believe we're considering adopting new regulations for airports such as Saint-Hubert for the moment.
7:50 p.m.
Bloc
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have to stop it there, I'm sorry. We're past our time.
Mr. Watson.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for your return to this committee for questions.
I must concede I'm not as familiar with this issue as most. It's not necessarily an issue that's been raised in our communities, so I'm trying to understand some of the debate and the concern around the table in terms of the line of questioning.
It seems me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, or other members may correct me in their turn if I've understood this wrong, that most of the complaints I'm hearing seem to be with the delegation of noise abatement management to the local airport authorities, which presumably includes this consultation process that they don't think is exactly right.
How long has that been the policy in this country, by the way? When was that established? Let's start with that.