Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[Jonathan Bagg, Senior Manager, Public Affairs, NAV CANADA]

When you look at zoning as it relates to development, airport authorities are responsible for producing something called a noise exposure forecast. That's something they receive guidance on from Transport Canada. That exposure forecast provides guidance in terms of what kind of development is suitable in the vicinity of an airport. There is onus on the municipality to be aware of that guidance.

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

If you become aware of a development and nobody has approached you for this work, would you proactively offer it?

[Jonathan Bagg]

The exposure forecast work is done by the airports, specifically developed by airport authorities, not by Nav Canada per se.

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

We'll have to ask them if they're proactively involved, because as we've noticed in some of the other testimony, this development can happen and then the next call that goes to somebody is complaining about noise.

I notice with interest that there are usually quite a large number of hotels near airports, where people go to sleep either after coming off a long flight or before commencing one. Having stayed in a few of those hotels, I notice that they're remarkably soundproof. Are there construction techniques, particularly when there's a new development going in, a residential development, that should be considered by developers and the municipality for cities or communities that are going to find themselves on a flight path?

[Jonathan Bagg]

There are different construction techniques that mitigate noise in terms of the quality of insulation, window panes, and so on. In Canada, we have some natural noise mitigation factors because of our winters—we have a lot of insulation in our homes—but that is not something that Nav Canada would provide guidance on specifically.

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

Who would?

[Jonathan Bagg]

I'm not 100% sure which organization would be responsible for that. I think that goes back to the zoning requirements with respect to what's an appropriate development in an area.

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

Who makes the decision on the number of night flights that are allowed into a given facility?

[Neil Wilson]

Airports determine what they're going to have coming in, based upon the demand at a particular airport. We don't determine demand at airports. We handle what happens when folks are flying in and out of airports. We don't say who flies in or doesn't fly in. Airports make those decisions.

That said, when traffic is lighter, as it is at night, we can do different things. If we are able and if safety permits, we can arrange our procedures to move traffic in different ways. One of the things we're looking to do at Pearson is precisely that.

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

Okay.

Ms. Wiebe, is Transport Canada consulted? Who has to give approval for an airport's plan to increase the number of night flights?

[Sara Wiebe]

Perhaps I could ask our colleagues in the Ontario region to talk specifically about the circumstances with regard to Pearson airport, as an example.

Joe and Cliff, I'd like to pass it over to you.

[Joseph Szwalek, Regional Director, Civil Aviation - Ontario, Department of Transport]

Okay. Thank you for the question.

With regard to movement at night, that is all predicated on passengers going in and out of the airport. In 2013, there was a request for a bump-up on movements at night. Again, this is in the quiet time, from 12:30 until 6:30 in the morning. To this day, they have not used that bump-up. The land lease agreement specifies that they have to maintain the airport in the same way as when they took it over in 1996.

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

Who was the request made to?

[Joseph Szwalek]

Do you mean the request for the bump-up?

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

Yes.

[Joseph Szwalek]

That was made to the minister for Transport Canada.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We're now on to Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank our many witnesses for being here this morning.

My questions are for Ms. Wiebe and Mr. Wilson, but the questions can be directed at other people as needed. I want brief answers since I have many questions and only a short amount of time.

Mr. Wilson, you said in your opening remarks that you've been doing everything in your power to achieve the noise abatement objective. However, this seems a little vague to me. Is there a numerical standard?

For example, I remember reading that the ICAO says that the noise levels shouldn't exceed 55 decibels. Is there a numerical objective for noise?

[Neil Wilson]

I'm going to ask Mr. Bagg to respond to that.

[Jonathan Bagg]

There isn't specific guidance in terms of a noise requirement for aircraft operating over residential areas. We use things like noise modelling when we're developing flight paths to understand the noise impact of changes, and we communicate those changes. We also identify ways to increase benefits.

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

I guess that it's the same thing when you talk about compliance with acoustic standards. Again, there's no scientific numerical standard that would give everyone a common understanding. Is that correct?

[Jonathan Bagg]

There are some metrics. You had some folks here earlier—at the previous hearing with Colin Novak, for instance—who talked about metrics and how they can understand annoyance, but there isn't a specific requirement to meet a decibel level.

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

Thank you.

You talked about the gradual descent—I don't remember the exact term—of aircraft that fly mainly over industrial and agricultural areas. However, the problem isn't really in those areas, although those areas may also have an issue.

Is this a common practice among all flights, or can another technique for landing in residential areas be used that may result in faster approaches but less noise?

[Neil Wilson]

I'm going to ask Mr. Cushnie to answer some of the specifics, but generally, we prefer and favour continuous descent operations, regardless of what land is being flown over, because they're quite a bit quieter.

Mr. Cushnie can provide more detail on that.