Transport Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are doing a study assessing the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

This morning, in our first portion of the meeting, we have Colin Novak, associate professor, University of Windsor. From the Community Alliance for Air Safety, we have Mark Kuess, director; and Al Kaminskas, public relations. From the Mississauga Board of Trade, we have David Wojcik, president and chief executive officer.

Thank you all very much for being here this morning.

Mr. Novak.

[Dr. Colin Novak, Associate Professor, University of Windsor, As an Individual]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Colin Novak. I'm an associate professor at the University of Windsor, specializing in acoustics, environmental noise and psychoacoustics. I'm also a principal with the firm of Akoustic Engineering, and a licensed professional engineer with 25 years of practical experience in the field of noise engineering.

In my capacity as a professor, I am the principal investigator for a three-year collaborative research project on the mitigation of aircraft noise annoyance, and the related community impacts through the development of targeted annoyance metrics. This research is equally funded by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Mitacs, a federal funding agency. You'll learn more about this research in the next session from my Ph.D. student, Julia Jovanovic.

As a practising engineer, my experience working with airports and aircraft noises is comprehensive, having worked with Toronto's Pearson airport, Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport, Calgary's international airport, and Toronto's Billy Bishop airport. I've also been engaged by Nav Canada in the past to perform environmental noise impact studies on communities affected by flight path changes in the Toronto area.

Last, I'm a technical adviser for Toronto Pearson's Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee, or CENAC. In this capacity, I provide technical answers and advice to the committee on issues of noise and deliver educational seminars to the committee and public groups.

An important tool to monitor, understand and manage community noise impacts are the airport's noise monitoring terminals. Toronto Pearson airport has 25 noise monitoring terminals. In addition to measuring the noise levels from above aircraft, the measured and archived noise data is associated to specific aircraft and their operation. The real-time noise levels are also shared with the public through the airport's WebTrak web page. This information sharing has been shown across many industries to be an effective community engagement tool and can increase an operator's environmental capacity.

The data has the potential to be used in several ways, including: as a method to monitor impacts during special cases, for example, runway construction or maintenance; as a research tool, as in the university's investigation of social impacts from aircraft noise; as a means of comparing effectiveness of noise mitigation initiatives or impacts of procedural changes; and for community relations, urban planning and public education.

The point that I am trying to make is that airports have and use tools which go beyond the simple measuring and reporting of sound levels. The key is to understand how to interpret the data, and effectively use it in a meaningful way to manage impacts.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the recently released World Health Organization study on environmental noise guidelines for the European region. From both my practical and academic experience, I recognize and support the initiatives that this report has undertaken. The report has clearly identified the problem from not only a European perspective but also a global one. Most importantly, it has identified the potential impacts from airport noise, particularly with respect to health. At the same time, I question the strength and validity of some of the conclusions, and certainly the recommendations.

The report acknowledges that many of the conclusions are weakly supported by the current state of science. Similarly, the recommendations are vague, impractical, and not strongly supported by the research. The report also clearly missed identifying the most significant intermediate between the generation of noise, and the resulting potential health impacts, and that is the annoyance.

It is very clear to me that more understanding of annoyance due to aircraft operation is required. The most important take away from the report is that more research is needed. Studies relevant to Canada, our people, our culture, and our economics are needed.

In closing, looking back as far as the 1960s, the aircraft industry and the airports, through their operations, have done an effective job at mitigating aircraft noise. This has partly been done through improved engine and airframe designs. The Airbus A320 retrofit is an example.

Noise mitigation has also been done through careful in-air operations. Air traffic is strategically managed with safety being paramount, but noise mitigation is also given high importance. However, these efforts are at a point of diminishing returns, with little more noise attenuation expected.

Moving forward, it is paramount that aircraft noise expectations and mechanisms for annoyance impacts and resulting health outcomes be more thoroughly studied and understood through good, relevant and properly funded research initiatives.

I thank you for listening. I welcome your questions later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

We'll now go to the Community Alliance for Air Safety.

Mark, perhaps you would like to lead off.

[Mark Kuess, Director, Community Alliance for Air Safety]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, distinguished committee, we're honoured to be invited by the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to appear before your committee today as a representative of the Community Alliance for Air Safety.

The Community Alliance for Air Safety represents more than 40 communities and more than 45,000 people. Our focus is to ensure the safe operations and responsible growth of Toronto's Pearson International Airport and other airports across Canada.

Since our formation about a year ago, we've engaged with most of the operational stakeholders, including pilots, airport unions, industry experts, the airlines, the GTAA and Nav Canada. In the past year we've also engaged with several key government stakeholders including the GTA caucus, Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. After more than a year of effort, we are encouraged that Transport Canada has recently accepted our invitation to engage in a collaborative discussion on the concerns of the communities that we represent.

We completed our first face-to-face discussion with Transport Canada a few weeks ago and raised three areas of concern. We believe this summary highlights the core of our concerns and we're going to use these as the basis of our introduction today.

The first one is that Transport Canada has been challenged to do more with less in the last 15 to 20 years as a result of available funding. We ask Transport Canada how they're going to bridge this gap between their budget constraints and the objective oversight of the airports across Canada.

The second one, further to the point above, is that Transport Canada has now started to move the responsibility of operational compliance to their operators. This trend is called self-regulation. This is concerning as CAAS is not sure how clear, objective oversight can be achieved when the operator such as the airport, the airlines and Nav Canada are checking themselves. Recent press has highlighted the issue and has included statistics about the lack of effectiveness of this self-regulation model.

The third one is the transparency of Transport Canada's approval process and oversight. We have a few examples. CAAS has requested regular public disclosure of data regarding enforcement of penalties and rule violations. We've received some limited data but we still believe there are significant gaps with the violations that are happening today and what's being enforced. There continues to be no commitment from Transport Canada to publish and discuss this data on a regular basis in a public forum.

We have a few other examples that we've shared in the transcript.

A key point is that the significant growth is concerning us on a number of fronts. At today's volume, the airport experiences a significant number of safety issues annually. As previously stated, the self-regulation model is simply not effective in creating meaningful accountability to ensure these safety issues are reported and resolved.

Second, the current footprint of the GTAA is landlocked on all four sides, which means the growth in traffic is limited to the same size airport. There is simply no physical room to grow.

Third, Transport Canada stated in 1990 that the GTAA is at capacity. The operational density at the airport is at an all-time high. CAAS's view is that if the GTAA continues to grow as quickly as possible to 90 million passengers, we will have planes landing every 15 seconds. This will introduce a significant level of higher risk operationally. We believe that has not been appropriately evaluated. It's definitely not been addressed with the public. We've raised this issue on many occasions. Transport Canada is the only organization in Canada that has full responsibility and full authority to ensure that these critical issues are acknowledged.

In summary, we're honoured that CAAS has been invited to share these concerns with the committee. CAAS is committed to continuing regular discussions with all stakeholders to ensure that the safety and well-being of all those who work and live in close proximity to any airport in Canada are respected. In the end, we're here to ensure that all key stakeholders keep safety top of mind when all decisions are being made regarding the past or future Canadian transport policies or procedures.

We hope we can add to this discussion. We welcome any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wojcik.

[David Wojcik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mississauga Board of Trade]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this critical economic issue that is impacting international airports across Canada, in particular, Toronto Pearson International Airport, which is Canada's busiest airport and the fifth most connected airport on the planet.

Being a good neighbour is of paramount importance, and airports in general are sensitive to this. No other airport in Canada does more to accomplish and accommodate this good neighbour policy than Toronto Pearson. A major economic component to globalization is Canada's position on that stage, and it's dependent on our ability to move goods and people on a 24-7 basis.

Although technology has vastly improved the ability for people to connect virtually, humans still prefer to do business face to face. Technology has not created a way to move goods across continents. At times, human life hangs in the balance while waiting for organs and tissue. Our Prime Minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of International Trade continually talk about Canada on the international stage, about the importance of Canada to be recognized globally and about how we must adapt to globalization.

A critical factor in competing at this level lies within our airports. In order for a package to arrive on time on another continent depends on the originating departure time. This means leaving Canada during these sensitive nighttime hours. For a tissue sample or an organ to arrive in Canada on time to save a human life, it means having to arrive at an airport during these sensitive nighttime hours. In order for global trade and deals to take place, business travellers must depart or arrive in Canada during these sensitive nighttime hours. In order for Toronto Pearson in particular to remain a Canadian gateway and a global connector, we must examine and expand these sensitive nighttime hours.

Night hours represent 25% of the production time at airports. No economic model would ever suggest shutting down supply and production when demand is present. Lost economic activity during these periods is estimated to be $6 billion per year, and this does not include the lost employment income. If our federal government is serious about Canada competing on an international basis, we must rethink our airport night hours strategy and give consideration to the economic impediment this restriction creates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much.

Mr. Liepert, you have six minutes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I suspect that the folks representing Community Alliance for Air Safety in Mississauga will be the focus of a number of questions because we have a number of members here from central Canada.

Mr. Novak, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

I represent a Calgary riding. In good traffic, I'm at least half an hour's drive from the airport. After they put in a new runway in Calgary, which I think you're probably familiar with, I am now getting complaints about air noise half an hour away from the airport because I guess they changed the flight path to come now over my area.

I guess it's one of these things where we're victims of our own success. If we want to be an international trading country, if we want to have three flights per day, increasing to five flights per day, from Calgary to Palm Springs as my city now does—and they're all full. Again, we're victims of our own success.

Would you concur with that? At the same time, in spite of that, are there solutions that you could propose that might alleviate some of the concerns of constituents? I would like you to comment on the presentation from the Community Alliance for Air Safety, which mentioned that there was a gap in Transport Canada funding. Is this a funding issue? Could you make some comments on those observations?

[Dr. Colin Novak]

Absolutely. There's a lot there.

I think your first question was whether I concur with your observations. Absolutely. What you're describing isn't unique to Calgary. It's what we're seeing at most major airports, especially the airports that are near urban centres. Also, some of the comments are very common to airports that have experienced flight path changes. Toronto Pearson also went through the same thing in 2012, and a lot of the discussions and community concerns are still tied to those flight path changes.

There are solutions. Some are better than others. Some solutions deal with how the aircraft are handled and how they are put on approach. In other words, they deal with the airspace design. Pearson is looking at some changes despite the fact that they did an airspace redesign in 2012. An example that is possible at some airports is continuous descent, where the aircraft would start descending well before they're even near the airport. In doing so, it's almost like a glide down to the airport. They don't have to use flaps which create a lot of noise. They don't have to adjust their position by adding thrust, etc., which also creates a lot of noise. However, this technique isn't possible at all airports. It depends on where the traffic is coming from and which way the runways are oriented.

One of the things that we're advocating, as part of the challenge, is that we have to deal with it at the receiver as well. There are a lot of questions and studies being done, particularly in Europe, in terms of the health effects from this noise. Let me be clear that when I say “the health effects”, it's not the noise itself that's causing you to have high blood pressure or cardiovascular effects; it's the annoyance and the tension associated with being exposed to this aircraft noise. That's why it differs so much from person to person, where you—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Could I get you to comment on transportation funding?

Then I have a quick question I'd like to sneak in before my time expires. In fact, I'll ask it now, and then you can answer at the same time.

I was at an event last night and I was talking to a retired air traffic controller. He maintained that one of the benefits of some of these changed flight paths is a reduction in emissions. Can you comment on that?

[Dr. Colin Novak]

That's true. That is one of the mandates they looked at when doing the airspace changes. It's because the aircraft don't have to be put in a holding pattern for as long as they used to be, and they can be taken right from their flight and brought down to a descent quicker, and they're not circling around the airport. Those result in reductions of—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

What about transportation funding?

[Dr. Colin Novak]

Transportation funding, as well. Yes, I think with many government agencies they experience the same problem. For example, the models that we use are mandated by Transport Canada. They haven't looked at them or revised them since the 1970s. We're really one of the only countries in the world that are still using NEF contours as a planning tool, and I think that's due to a lack of funding to Transport Canada to do the appropriate research. That's just one example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Novak.

We're moving to Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

Mr. Novak, in this room, you're the noise professional. To give me and my colleagues a better idea of how to manage noise, can you shed light on the different airport noise measurements that currently exist around the world? What measurement best establishes the sound environment perceived by the human ear?

[Dr. Colin Novak]

Many different metrics are used by airports, and it changes from country to country. For example, the European region uses something different from what we use in Canada, and what we use in Canada is different from what is used in the U.S.

A lot of the metrics are average-based noise metrics, where they'll measure the sound over an extended period of time and give you an average.

For example, in the U.S., they use something called Ldn, or in some states, like California, Lden. They take the daytime noise over the entire day, and the nighttime noise over that 8-hour period. They add a 10 decibel penalty, then come up with this one single-value number to represent that entire 24 hours.

In my opinion, it's not an appropriate metric to use for impacts that are cyclic, where we have an aircraft flying in anywhere from every 90 seconds to several minutes. It is that frequency of the aircraft, the coming and the going, as well as, if you think about nighttime noise, the Lmax levels. It's not that eight-hour average over the nighttime that's waking you up; it's the maximum levels, the high-impact sounds.

Europe does do a better job, for the most part, than what we do here in Canada.

To answer your other question, yes, certainly there are better metrics out there. With respect to human perception and how we hear sounds, there's another factor that really isn't being taken into account in evaluating aircraft noise, but it is being used in other industries, and that's the human impact of the sound.

A typical metric would be a loudness metric, where it takes not only the sound pressure level, but also includes other factors that affect the quality of the sound, like the frequency, whether it has modulation or is sporadic. All of these have significant impacts on the impression of the sound we hear.

In other words, with psychoacoustics, it's not necessarily how loud or how quiet the sound is, but also how good or bad the sound appears to the human.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What type of measuring device is best suited to assess the noise? Are we using the right model in Canada? What could Canada do better in comparison with other countries?

[Dr. Colin Novak]

Airports use noise monitoring terminals to assess the sound. On the hardware side, I know what is used in Calgary, Montreal and Toronto is a Brüel & Kjær type 2250. Brüel & Kjær is a Danish company. They are the world's oldest manufacturer of sound measuring equipment, going back to 1942.

The equipment these airports use is installed at 80% of the major airports in the entire world. These are type 1 sound level meters. Sound level meters are type 0, 1, 2 or 3. Type 0 is used as a reference in a laboratory to calibrate other instrumentation, and type 1 would be the next level. From a practical perspective, type 1 is the most accurate of all of the equipment used. This data is then sent in real time to servers in Australia via 3G communications.

It's just measuring the data. They're measuring it in terms of the best quality of the signal itself. Next though, the key is what you use that data for. Is it just put there on a server where it's archived or do the airports actively take that data, use it to respond to complaints and monitor infractions, etc.?

I believe that a lot of airports, while they're measuring very good-quality data, are doing very little effectively with the data.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning. It's a pleasure to hear from them.

We're here to discuss an issue that affects the comfort zone of communities located near airports and the airports themselves. We're not talking about banning air traffic, although we could discuss night departures at greater length, and we'll certainly do so.

Mr. Kuess, I want to start with you.

Your opening remarks didn't surprise me. However, once again, I'm disappointed with the situation. You seem to be saying that, once again, in this area as in many other areas, Transport Canada has been neglecting its responsibilities in order to move toward self-regulation. As we've seen in other areas of transportation, this rarely produces the desired results.

Can you briefly describe how you deal with airport authorities when you try to resolve the issues caused by airport noise for surrounding communities?

[Mark Kuess]

We've been at this for about 16 months. Sixteen months before that, we weren't too informed about how the process works. We've learned a lot on how things go.

What we understand is that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority is responsible for operations on the ground, parking the planes and moving them around. Once they get to a runway, they become the responsibility of Nav Canada. Nav Canada controls the runways and the airspace.

They are two private companies. They used to have connections to the government, but now they operate completely independently. Then you have Transport Canada, which we called, the last time we talked to them, the police in this process. They enforce the rules. You also have the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which does the investigations.

That's the way it's structured here in Canada. It has worked quite well for many years.

In terms of the challenge, this is industry experts coming to us. We don't go and ask for the questions; it's amazing how many people come to us. They say the funding challenges are there. Transport Canada has difficulties doing what they've done in the past, and we have incredible growth. The GTAA talked about a 2% growth of their passenger volume on an annual basis. They're somewhere between 7% and 9%. Business is really good.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Did you know that a number of countries—France is an excellent example—have established an airport noise pollution control authority? The group is responsible for hearing complaints, conducting investigations and imposing penalties for non-compliance with the regulations. Could this type of model be imported to Canada?

[Mark Kuess]

That's an excellent point. Countries such as the U.K. and Germany have done a phenomenal job and we've raised this issue on several occasions.

If you think about industry best practices, airports such as Frankfurt have done a lot of operational changes that have made the local communities happy. They've made a safer environment and the business is growing quite well. We know that in the U.K. and Germany they're doing great things to progress. These best practices have been talked about with the GTAA, but they have not been implemented. There is a better way to do things.

We can grow. We can have strong economic growth here in Canada. We can have international travel. We can still do it and keep people safe and local communities happy. For sure, it can be done.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Novak, I now have questions for you.

At the start of your presentation, you said that you had participated in a three-year project on the mitigation of noise. Have the project results been released to the public? If so, can the committee obtain a copy of the work?