Transport Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

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

We're starting to have a good idea of the situation when we see that, for the past decade or so, Transport Canada has systematically abdicated its responsibilities in favour of the industry.

Ms. Jovanovic, I want to continue the discussion with you.

You said earlier that Canada should review the noise exposure thresholds, since its models are outdated and wouldn't be corroborated through a number of studies.

Could the first issue with the topic that we're currently studying be the lack of evidence to help us understand the situation and find solutions?

[Julia Jovanovic]

I strongly believe there is a lack of Canadian evidence. I've been reviewing this issue for quite some time. I find myself with a significant lack of data that can support any type of assessment of possible mitigation measures.

I was referring to our NEF contours, particularly with outdated metrics that are currently used as guidelines by Transport Canada. Our NEF contours are primarily meant as a land planning tool. Essentially, they predict the noise into the future and how it's going to impact the ground level.

The thresholds currently set forth by Transport Canada are NEF 30, as being inappropriate for noise sensitive development, and NEF 25, which needs to be treated with some acoustic insulation.

In any case, these guidelines have not been reviewed or corroborated by Canadian annoyance surveys, which are the tools used to predict how many people will be annoyed at those exposure levels. These guidelines were set in the 1970s, based on an analysis done in the U.S. for multiple transportation sources, not aircraft noise alone. Many countries across the world have undertaken efforts to review these thresholds and the metrics they use to be better equipped to predict the effects of aircraft noise on communities around air paths or airports.

If we don't have an updated version of a metric like this or guidelines like these, even the measures currently taken in land use and planning are not effective.

There's been a shift. There's an increasing trend in aircraft noise annoyance at lower levels. This is not taken into account currently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Jovanovic, first I would make an audio point. You don't have to lean into your microphone. The “p-popping” hurts the ears of our translators.

[Julia Jovanovic]

My apologies.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Microphone technique: That was my life for a while.

[An hon. member]

Noise-making.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

You mentioned that annoyance can contribute to other health problems. Now, I may ask some questions that will just illuminate the fact that we don't know enough right now, but is the opposite the case? Are there certain health attributes a person would have that would make them more susceptible to being annoyed by noise? What do we know about that?

[Julia Jovanovic]

Thank you for asking that question. That's where my recommendation comes from for a more thorough examination of the issue of annoyance. From as far back as the 1960s, scientists and experts have been aware of contributions of personal noise sensitivity to the assessment of annoyance. There are factors, personal factors, that may impact that assessment of annoyance, whether amplified or reduced.

I'm sure within this room there is a variation in terms of how people react to, for example, the noise that keeps on interrupting us in the background. This is a very subjective metric. The co-founding factors need to be looked at in order to determine what best to do to mitigate it. Noise sensitivity has been found to be one significant co-founding factor contributing to annoyance.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In a past life, relating to my opening comments, I programmed radio stations. I found that men and women reacted quite differently to annoyance factors. That was something we looked at when we programmed music—the tempo, the kind of instrumentation, etc.

Again, do we have data which shows that kind of difference between men and women when it comes to reacting to noise?

[Julia Jovanovic]

Most certainly, and there are variations of that data. Some surveys that were done in the 1970s indicated that there were not significant differences between men and women. However, more recent surveys, and performed in different regions, of course, show the contrary to be true: Females are more annoyed at lower levels of noise than males are. There are variations in conclusions when it comes to that as well.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Our ability to hear various sounds, especially various frequencies, changes as we age. Are there frequency outputs from aircraft engines that tend to penetrate? Are there certain frequencies emitted by aircraft that might be the source of most of the aggravation it causes?

[Julia Jovanovic]

You bring up a very important point, and I thank you for that. Sound quality is critical when we're looking at aircraft noise. The dependence up until this point in terms of regulation has always been sound level—how loud the noise is—but that does not explain the variance between one individual being highly annoyed from automobile traffic at a certain level and being the same amount of annoyed for aircraft noise levels that are lower than those from automobile traffic. It's not all about loudness. It is about loudness to some extent and sound quality to another. The frequency composition of the sound is very relevant.

Typically, when you have the presence of pure tones, which is one dominant frequency, that tends to elicit a very strong reaction from a receiver, from a person. High frequencies also tend to do the same. Low frequencies penetrate the home, for example, more easily, and may be a cause of vibration.

It is something that has been suggested as an alternative route for research going forward. A European study actually took the sound profile of different jet types and asked community members to adjust certain sound quality aspects in order to get a more pleasing overall sound. It was not reduced in loudness, mind you. The composition of the sound was just different, and it had a reduction of annoyance associated with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Isaac, I'd like to thank you for your testimony. You make it very apparent that this is a national issue because everything you were saying is also reiterated in my riding as well, so thank you for that.

I will start with Mr. Castle and Ms. Tang.

When I first was introduced to drones, I thought it was great because I read an article that a drone had dropped a defibrillator to somebody in a remote area. The person was actually saved and given enough time to get to a hospital.

Since then, it seems we're pretty much just limited by our imagination regarding their capabilities and how we could use them. However, as you mentioned there's also a lot of concern about how dangerous they are. I know that at Pearson, right beside the riding I represent, there were a lot of near misses due to recreational drones. Some were found on the tarmac. You can only imagine what could have happened if one had actually collided with one of the planes.

You mentioned that you're mapping airspace for individuals. I wonder how that would interact with geofencing. For example, would airports have the right to geofence a space so that nobody could use that space?

[Priscilla Tang]

Yes, that's exactly the capability that we would build into this. Part of the purpose is to demark areas that are off limits for people who are recreational pilots of drones—areas such as airports and even ocean war graves. It would enable that knowledge to be available to the common user, just as when we use Google Maps or Waze we receive important traffic information about an upcoming construction zone that is to be avoided.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Would this platform be available in app form?

[Priscilla Tang]

Yes. It would be easily integrated into existing technology that we all use. It would be available in the cloud, on your smart phones, on your iPad, and on your computer. It would be accessible remotely as well.

For example, as we regulate drones, if we were simply to install a router or GPS device, like a blockchain router, on every single drone in Canada, then Transport Canada and other governments, as well as airports and pilots, would be able to monitor at all times where all drones are in the air.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I always have to ask, from a security aspect, are these things going to be fairly secure, or do you think somebody could hack into them? What are the built-in fail-safes if something does happen if it is hacked?

[Priscilla Tang]

If something does happen to the data being hacked?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Yes.

[Priscilla Tang]

Well, the idea is actually that we make this data publicly available, in the same way that we can access data when we go on Google Maps or Waze. Everyone is able to see the traffic information. Everyone is able to see what new roads are created and where other cars are located. The idea is that in order to promote public safety, we make the data available to as many people as possible.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jovanovic, you mentioned that the WHO recognizes noise as an annoyance. Is that specifically airplane noise or noise generally?

[Julia Jovanovic]

It's noise from a variety of traffic types, including rail, automobile, and aircraft. There's also consideration for industrial noise, entertainment noise, leisure noise and so on—annoyances associated with all of those different types of noise.