Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[Martin Massé]

That is an excellent question, sir. That is why we are so pleased about the fact that as early as 2023, an REM west branch line will reach the airport.

Regarding the Montreal Airport, we think that should go even further and that the REM should extend to the Via Rail station. It is located less than a kilometre away from the tiered parking which will be rebuilt, so close to the new REM station.

This will allow people, including those in the regions, to take the train to go to the airport. Trois-Rivières or Drummondville residents could easily go to the VIA Rail station in Dorval, then take a Réseau express métropolitain car for approximately one stop, and be warm and cozy in the airport.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jeneroux, go ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Edmonton Riverbend, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. Thank you for coming from Calgary and Montreal. For you in Vancouver, even though you're not here, it's great to see you tonight.

I want to start with you, Mr. Sartor. In Edmonton, we have a fantastic airport, too. However, we're also in the process of looking at building that third runway, eventually. Depending on whom you talk to, it seems to be around the corner, but it's not quite at the stage that you guys are at. However, we're in a different situation. I don't think I've received a single complaint in my riding—and it goes right up to the edge of the city limits—because there's quite a distance, still, from the airport.

In terms of lessons learned—maybe it's consultation with the community—do you have some advice, perhaps, that you could pass on to me when we head down that path, which I hope is around the corner?

[Bob Sartor]

Certainly. The Calgary airport has been in its existing location since 1937. The city was but a distant cluster of homes and businesses quite far away. What happened is that the city grew around the airport over a period of time. One thing that has been extremely helpful in Alberta—and it's a unique Alberta phenomenon—is the airport vicinity protection area. That was put in place in 1972, I think. Effectively, it looked at those noise exposure forecasts, based on aircraft at the time, in 1972, and said that any kind of residential development of any significance—schools, places of worship, those kinds of things—should not be built here.

So yes, the city is built around it, but unfortunately, even with those noise exposure forecasts.... The noise exposure forecasts are very beneficial, because they forced the municipality, if it wishes to build there, to work collaboratively with the airport. Unless the municipality and the airport agree, the legislation, which is provincial, will override. That's a real plus.

Having said that, we have not moved those noise exposure forecasts since 1972. The reality is that, while aircraft have gotten quieter, we've had much densification around the airport. The challenge is, even with great legislation.... The important thing, realistically, is a set of acoustical standards that will make sense for homes that are built on flight paths. That's something we're working on with the municipality right now. I don't think we'd have the opportunity to do that if we didn't have what we call the vehicle or the tool of the airport vicinity protection area.

[Matt Jeneroux]

That's unique to Alberta. Has no other jurisdiction, provincially, considered something like this since 1972? That's not a question for you, but I do notice that some of the Nav Canada folks are still around here. Perhaps they could answer after the committee.

You talked about the cargo growth that you're experiencing. Cargo growth is a revenue tool. Is it something that airports out there are actively trying to take from each other? Is it growing? Do you want it from your international partners? How, exactly, does that come about? Do you have insight on some of the conversations that must happen to make this a reality?

[Bob Sartor]

Again, in Calgary we have the unique situation that we are subject to the Regional Airports Authorities Act of Alberta. It's not just federal; we have provincial regulation, and one of those mandates is to drive economic activity, employment and GDP, not only on the airport campus but within the community we service.

We do go after cargo. It's more like the cargo is coming after us, because we happen to be ideally situated, with easy access to the Trans-Canada Highway. We are the largest consumer of that cargo product, so we will get flights coming in, in what we call our integration alley—the area where all the integrators are—and moving out toward Saskatchewan, west into the interior of B.C. and north into Edmonton.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Is there a partnership between you and Edmonton? I know there are a bunch of regional airports, but Edmonton is attracting a fair bit of cargo, particularly from China. I'm curious whether there is that level of partnership between the two of you.

[Bob Sartor]

I wouldn't call it a partnership, but Tom Ruth and I are friends and we talk constantly.

In fact, you'd find that most airport CEOs collaborate quite well.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Right. I imagine, though, that there is some competition. We often hear of flights being scooped by Calgary. We'd love the direct flights in Edmonton.

[Bob Sartor]

We are in a unique position because we're a city of 1.2 million people and this year we will move 17.4 million people. Next year, we'll move another million or a million and one more. So we're a heavily connecting airport. Edmonton is less of a connecting airport and more of a feeder airport. It has its own international destinations, for sure, but connections are roughly 38% of our total business today, which makes us the busiest connecting airport in Canada.

[Matt Jeneroux]

But you don't have the Edmonton Oilers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sikand, you have one minute if you have a short question.

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

My question is for Mr. Massé.

I represent a riding in Mississauga, in the GTA. I'll tell you about my observations, but my actual question will be, what can we learn from Mirabel?

What I've observed is that Billy Bishop can't really reach its full potential because residents don't want the noise there. We're a bit disconnected. I like Pearson. I go through it and it's going to grow. I don't know if the infrastructure in the cities will be able to handle that unless we can get some rail in there and people moving through passenger means.

Pickering is a bit far, and Hamilton is a bit far. A solution, it seems to me, would be an airport north of the escarpment. It would be close to Hamilton and Pearson and would open up Guelph and Kitchener.

What can we learn from the Mirabel experience, though?

[Martin Massé]

Personally, it would be quite preposterous on my side to interfere in this debate, but as for Mirabel, as I mentioned previously to your colleague, the fact of the matter is that we never had the commuting systems. Airplanes now can go over Mirabel. We also felt that Montreal lost its position as a hub up until 2013-14, when Air Canada decided to go back to Montreal as a hub.

All in all, for the community it made no sense to have two disconnected airports, without the commuting aspect—still having air connection but without the proper system. It made no sense.

Now that we know we'll have a commuting system, the REM, it will provide safe, sound and frequent commuting for the whole region, not just from downtown.

I think circumstances and the contributions of all the players have meant that concentration around Dorval is the only way for that airport to play the role of economic driver for greater Montreal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Unfortunately, we have run out of time.

I've been given notice by Mr. Hardie and then a question from Mr. Aubin, but I'll go to Mr. Hardie if the witnesses will just bear with us for a moment or two.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to raise something that we dealt with and set aside some time ago. I'd like to move that the committee now resume consideration of the motion, which read as follows:

The Committee shall commit to not more than 4 meetings to study bus passenger safety, hearing from, in order but not limited to, emergency room physicians and coroners, the Transportation Safety Board, the US National Highway Transportation Safety Authority, transportation safety advocates and stakeholders, and finally from bus manufacturers, and that the Chair shall be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, resources and scheduling to complete this task.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hardie.

This is a dilatory motion, which is not up for discussion or debate.

(Motion agreed to)

[Churence Rogers, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.]

Madam Chair, I wonder if I could introduce a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can you just hold off on that for a moment? I'd like to make a suggestion at this point, given our time. We have time on Thursday under committee business. Could we deal with the contents of the motion and the debate on Thursday?

Is the committee okay with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

At that time, on Thursday, we can have any amendments the committee might want to make, if that's all right with everyone.

Mr. Aubin, go ahead.

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

This leads me to the question I wanted to ask. I'd like to know if the committee's next hearing on Thursday will be public. I would have also liked to table a motion regarding the Greyhound developments, and the notice period will have expired.

If we don't get good news this week, we can probably ask the minister to come and present his solutions. However, I did not want to table that motion before the deadline, given that the solutions may already be in the works.

Will our Thursday committee meeting be public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Right now, we're scheduled to do consideration of the draft recommendations for our trade corridor study. It's an in camera session for Thursday. You certainly can move to go in public at any time during that meeting.

You'll have a chance to review that a bit longer, and any amendments that you might want to present on Thursday.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. We appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.