Transport Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux.

Mr. Hardie, you have a quick question that you wanted to get—

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

Actually, I have a whole bunch of quick questions, but I'll try to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Be quick, because you don't have that much time.

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

I know.

We went into this considering that this program was not a stimulus program, for the reasons you've already noted. The economy was percolating along quite well.

For public consumption, we talk about infrastructure, but I think we need to include the word “amenities” in there. A bus shelter may be nice to have in Vancouver in February, but it's really darned important here in Ottawa, for instance. Right? Leading from that, has there been an attempt to monetize the overall returns?

You quoted a figure on the cost per job, and I presume that's direct employment from people wielding those shovels in the ground. There are obviously spinoff jobs for the suppliers and everybody else who is feeding the project.

However, has there also ever been an attempt to monetize the other long-tailed returns—quality of life issues, environmental benefits, etc.—to get a full picture of the returns that we're really going to see from these investments?

[Yves Giroux]

That would be of great interest to many people, but that is something I think would be premature try to estimate while the projects are still being completed. Indeed, some of them are just starting to be completed. Given the long time horizon of several of the infrastructure programs, it would be very difficult to come up with a precise estimate of that. In my opinion, it would be very difficult to estimate these measures.

The measures you mentioned would be some of the main benefits of investing in infrastructure, or amenities, as you mentioned. It's very difficult to quantify the value of a bus shelter, for example, for somebody who just passes by in Ottawa in January. But for the person who is in that bus shelter during a snowstorm, it has immense value. It's very difficult to quantify the direct and indirect benefits of this, but it's obvious that there are benefits. I haven't tried to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much for coming, and congratulations on your position, as well. I expect that we will hear a fair amount from you in the years to come.

We will suspend momentarily while we set up our video conference for our next segment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

By video conference, we have the Comité Anti Pollution des Avions de Longueuil, and Johanne Domingue. We also have Paul-Yanic Laquerre as an individual by video conference, and I believe Raymond Prince is also with us. From the Markland Wood Homeowners Association, we have Saulius Brikis, director, and Ilona Maziarczyk, also a director.

Welcome to all of you. I guess we should start with our video conferencing. Comité Anti Pollution des Avions de Longueuil, would you like to start?

[Johanne Domingue, President, Comité antipollution des avions de Longueuil]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have already submitted a brief clearly explaining the problems that have arisen over the past 10 years. Today, I would like to help you understand some of them.

The Saint-Hubert airport has four flight schools. To provide some context, I will tell you that there were as many as 61,000 local flights in 2005, and 109,000 in 2009. Consequently, the noise level above homes increased significantly.

Given that this airport's runway is located in a densely populated area, the residents took action. We should not forget that small aircraft such as the Cessna 150 and Cessna 152, which are not equipped with noise suppressors, use this airport. There is a large number of local flights and more than 90,000 itinerant flights. The total number of flights is close to 199,000. For some years, this airport has held the Canadian record for the number of small aircraft flights and local flights.

Residents swung into action in 2009. It is impossible and unthinkable for residents to tolerate this level of aircraft movement. It is truly abusive and excessive.

We met with the elected officials of our town councils and held a public consultation in 2010, in which members of the community were very involved. We received 69 briefs, 200 solutions and 49 recommendations. One year later, despite all of this, the residents had to apply to the class action assistance fund in order to launch a class action suit as the matter was not resolved.

It is difficult for us, the residents, to come to grips with the fact that heavy trucks cannot drive through our neighbourhood whereas an aircraft can fly above our homes. There can be an aircraft taking off every 60 seconds. It is very noisy and we have been told that this represents almost 70 decibels every three minutes. We often say that it is like lawnmowers circling above our homes. It is difficult to understand that there has been no change in the policy concerning aircraft noise levels, whereas there have been noise regulations for our roads since 1970.

This brings me to the subject of quality of life. People who live near airports often feel like second-class citizens. They cannot enjoy a normal evening like everyone else. Cargo aircraft begin flying over homes at 4 a.m. At about 5 a.m., 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., there are itinerant flights headed towards the regions. Between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m., there are local flights by small aircraft that transport packages. We are woken up starting at 4 a.m. and constantly bombarded by the noise.

This noise level has an effect on health, which has been documented by the Montérégie Public Health Department. It found that the noise is real and that the citizens of Saint-Hubert are at greater risk. However, the noise levels were measured in decibels A, or dB(A), whereas the Public Health Department has informed us that the noise level should instead be measured in L_Amax. I will not go into the details because it takes a certain expertise, and mine is limited to the noise I experience.

Transport Canada uses a Noise Exposure Forecast system, or NEF, to measure noise levels, whereas the Public Health Department and Health Canada use different systems. Therefore, it is difficult for us to get a good night's sleep that is not disturbed by noise pollution in light of the different assessments.

Over the years, we redoubled our efforts. We realized that several organizations falling under different jurisdictions are responsible for this matter. We spoke to the people at NAV CANADA, Transport Canada, municipalities, the Public Health Department and Health Canada, but none of these organizations seems to have sole responsibility for this matter. We still do not know the exact noise level that we are exposed to and who can solve this problem. The departments work in silos, and there does not seem to be the will to solve it. Consequently, we, the citizens, are trying to solve it, but we have addressed only a very small part of the problem.

From a legal perspective, Transport Canada must revise its policies because the situation is becoming very difficult for us. For example, a Superior Court ruling ordered the airport manager to issue a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen), but Transport Canada had this requirement overturned.

We have been told that this falls under a certain jurisdiction and that it cannot be changed. All we want is a noise policy. We understand that the approval of aircraft noise suppressors or safety issues must be Transport Canada's responsibility. However, it should be possible for a noise policy to be managed locally. The only response we have had to date is that it cannot be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Domingue. We'll leave some time for some questions from the committee members.

On to whoever would like to go first, Mr. Brikis or Ms. Maziarczyk.

[Ilona Maziarczyk, Director, Markland Wood Homeowners Association]

Madam Chair, committee members, my name is Ilona Maziarczyk and beside me is Saulius Brikis. We represent the Markland Wood Homeowners Association, a 60-year-old community organization. We are a residential community located five kilometres south of Pearson airport in the riding of Etobicoke Centre.

Our community is made up of 1,200 houses and 1,400 rental and condo apartments. There are four schools that attract students from all over, and 2,200 students spend each and every school day in these schools. It's important to note that Markland Wood was founded in 1960. At that time, the airport was just Malton airport, long before it expanded into present-day Pearson. Pearson is an east-west airport, but it has two north-south runways, and they both produce traffic that passes directly over us.

How are we impacted by aircraft noise? Although the north-south runways are used less frequently than the east-west ones, the impact on our community five kilometres from the airport is significant due to aircraft speed and altitudes as low as a thousand feet. Noise interrupts sleep in residential areas. The preferential runway system means there is no night traffic south of the airport, except when weather makes it necessary. However, pilots and carriers request the use of our runways at night, and Nav Canada grants those requests routinely. The GTAA investigates breaches and many are sent to Transport Canada for penalties, with little consequence.

We've come to ask you to do three things: one, to ensure there is no increase in traffic on Pearson's north-south runways, no change whatsoever except to reduce traffic on both; two, to eliminate night flights, both scheduled and pilot-requested; and three, to remedy the lack of government oversight of noise.

Weather patterns make Pearson an east-west airport. Nav Canada built the 2012 STAR system based on this fact. The GTAA states that the north-south runways are only used—whether day or night—when needed for weather or maintenance reasons. Furthermore, at night there are strict rules for using only “preferential runways”, which exclude flights over Markland, except due to weather, but pilots ask to use these runways and Nav Canada's air traffic controllers give them permission.

This traffic impacts residents south of the airport due to the extremely low altitude and slow aircraft speed. In the first six months of 2018, over 28,000 noise complaints were filed in the riding of Etobicoke Centre. Traffic on the north-south runways is shared between the two, based on safety, runway length and aircraft size. We must reduce traffic on both north-south runways.

Aviation noise is linked to significant health effects. Night flights are particularly bad because they contribute to sleep deprivation. Airports claim that night flights are needed to maintain essential deliveries, but cargo flights account for only 12% of Pearson's night flights.

Airports and cities thrive even when night flights are banned, as they now are in Frankfurt and Zurich, and will soon be at Heathrow. Where there is political will, there is a way. Pearson used to have an overnight curfew; now there is none. Night flights are scheduled to increase. This is unacceptable. Eliminate night flights.

The lack of government oversight of GTAA is unprecedented internationally. The Transportation Safety Board oversees air safety in Canada, but there's no independent oversight of noise. Other countries have strong independent bodies to protect their citizens. The GTAA is not accountable. Their ground lease gives the federal government some authority. The lease stipulates that there must be a noise forum, but it has become essentially a mouthpiece for the GTAA.

We need an independent and empowered ombudsman. Lack of government oversight impacts all airport communities. Don't promote growth at the expense of health. Healthy citizens are the real economic engines of our country.

In summary, do not allow an increase on north-south runways, eliminate all night flights and appoint an ombudsman.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will go back to our teleconference.

Mr. Laquerre, would you please go forward for five minutes?

[Paul-Yanic Laquerre, As an Individual]

1 would like to thank the members of this committee for giving me the opportunity to provide my testimony.

ln June 2017, my wife and I acquired a property in the Vimont district of Laval. We used to live in Montreal's Ahuntsic district, and our decision to move was largely motivated by the unbearable noise of planes flying low over our home.

To our dismay, we soon discovered after a complaint to the public relations department of Aéroports de Montréal (ADM) that our new property, which is 31.2 km from the airport, is located directly under the air corridor used by aircraft landing on runways 24 when the winds are from the southwest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you slow down a wee bit? The translator is having a hard time keeping up. Thank you.

[Paul-Yanic Laquerre]

Thank you, but I'm trying to stay within my five-minute time limit. I should also remind you that I sent in my speech ahead of time.

I am tabling here as exhibit 1 the maps provided by ADM indicating the position of our residence and the flight path in question. Since southwest winds prevail in the metropolitan area about 70% of the time, we actually find ourselves with the same aircraft flying over our heads as in Montreal, at only a slightly higher altitude.

We initially estimated at 30 to 40 the number of planes flying over our home every day. However, an exact count conducted over the holidays in early August revealed that it is closer to 70 to 80 aircraft per day, with a frequency of one per minute at certain peak times. Needless to say, it is almost impossible to spend a summer day in the backyard without hearing the constant drone of aircraft, with the only lull occurring between 1:00 and 5:30 in the morning. The noise is audible inside the house, even with the windows shut. We get woken up at 5:30 a.m. on a fairly regular basis, as we were two days ago.

Faced with the apathy and indifference of ADM and NAV CANADA, we decided to contact the Minister of Transport to have him deal with these two bodies. I would like to table a copy of our letter to him as exhibit 2. In that letter, we pointed out that the number of flights has doubled since the 1960s and is expected to continue increasing at a rate of 2.5% per year beyond 2040. We also proposed that the minister ask NAV CANADA to move the air corridors such that aircraft would fly over highways and uninhabited areas, which are just a few hundred metres south or east of the current corridors.

We additionally mentioned the fact that pilots can currently descend by levels to 3,000 feet, 27 nautical miles from the runway threshold, at a very noisy engine speed equivalent to 85% of maximum speed. The alternative would be to adopt the continuous descent approach method by flying at 9,000 feet at 42 nautical miles and beginning their final descent about 30 miles from the airport, almost gliding the final distance, at a minimal engine speed, significantly reducing noise emission. CDA-type procedures are already in place in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Paris and London.

However, in his October 2 response, which I would like to table as exhibit 3, Minister Garneau denied any responsibility pursuant to the 1992 delegation of authority agreement between Transport Canada and ADM, as well as the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act. Yet, above and beyond the legal relationship under which ADM is still accountable to the Minister of Transport, the minister himself, as an elected official and member of the government, has a moral responsibility to represent Canadians who are struggling with noise problems that could affect their well-being. Indeed, members of the government establish the rules of law that govern us, and the decision to entrust the management of air corridors to NAV CANADA ultimately rests with the government and the Minister of Transport.

It is just not right that in a situation involving public nuisance, citizens have to deal with a private profit-driven company such as ADM, which denies the existence of a noise problem—as evidenced by the quote from its VP of public affairs, Christiane Beaulieu, that appeared in a 2012 article in the Journal de Montréal, which I am tabling as exhibit 4—and which itself delegates its responsibility to a third party such as NAV CANADA, whose last concern is the well-being of citizens, despite its commitments in the 2015 Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. There is no justification for the fact that the only recourse available to citizens is to take legal action, as the group Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau recently did.

The decision by previous governments to abdicate part of the responsibility for aeronautical noise pollution to local authorities was a good-faith error. This experience has nevertheless been harmful to Canadians. Given this failure, the government must review the National Airports Policy and require ADM and NAV CANADA to take into account the evolution in metropolitan land use in order to change the practices perpetuated over the past 40 years with total disregard for urbanization.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will go on to Mr. Prince.

[Raymond Prince, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I want to start by congratulating the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for addressing this problem, which affects hundreds of thousands of people. Kudos to you.

I also want to thank my MP, Angelo Iacono, for inviting me to this meeting.

My testimony is quite specific and personal, like Mr. Laquerre's. We've gone through a similar experience.

I lived in Ahuntsic until last year. Until 2012, I never had any problems with aircraft noise overhead. But in 2012, NAV CANADA suddenly changed its air corridors over Montreal. For me, it was hell. All of a sudden, I was seeing and hearing an unending stream of planes passing overhead, day and night, first at 3,500 feet or 3,000 feet, and later at 2,500 feet. In my yard, I had to shout at my wife to make myself heard, even if she was just three or four feet away.

I installed a noise measurement station, which calculated that in July 2015 alone, there were 3,700 aircraft overflights above my residence, generating noise in excess of 55 decibels, including 650 flights in the middle of the night. Yet my property was 10 kilometres from the airport as the crow flies. After five years of that hell, though I am a city-dweller and I love Montreal, I did what I never thought I would: I moved to the suburbs, to Laval, to regain peace and quiet.

Before buying a house in Auteuil, I spent a whole summer carefully studying the district, and it was perfect. When there were visible overflights, they were at an altitude of 5,000 or 6,000 feet. They made only a bit of noise, like the buzzing of a mosquito. I bought the property in the fall of 2016 and moved there in May 2017. When I arrived, I noticed that the planes were now passing over my new house at 3,000 to 4,000 feet, and there was a pretty steady flow. You can imagine my dismay. The kicker is that when those aircraft fly over my house, they are in the landing process, and they have at least 27 kilometres to go, as the crow flies, before they touch down on the runway. Mr. Laquerre mentioned a distance of 32 kilometres, so let's say it's about 30 kilometres. How can planes be making so much noise over my home when they are 30 kilometres away from landing on the runway?

I'm certain the Government of Canada had good intentions when it supported the advent of Aéroports de Montréal, or ADM, and NAV CANADA. I remember statements indicating that Canada was the first country to privatize its skies, in 1996. It was a bold move, but with the blunders we have seen, we now know it was an unfortunate decision.

I spent huge amounts of time between 2012 and 2017 trying to get ADM and NAV CANADA to restore quality of life to thousands of Montreal residents, without success. I worked with the group Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau. I have come to the realization that those organizations are now being driven by the lure of money, to the detriment of our environment.

It's not the increase in air traffic that is causing problems, it's the fact that aircraft are flying lower than before. That enables the air carriers to save on fuel, a fact confirmed by Minister Garneau's office. Their excuse for making our lives hell is that they are generating less greenhouse gas. What a crazy pretext.

They also confirmed that lining up planes to land one after another or to follow the same flight path means fewer employees are needed in the control tower, saving NAV CANADA money. The carriers behind NAV CANADA have become so powerful that they dictate the rules. Both ADM and NAV CANADA say nothing has changed in a century. How can I, as an ordinary citizen, prove the contrary?

For example, NAV CANADA violated its June 2015 communications and consultation protocol when the altitude of flights over Laval was subsequently lowered to less than 4,000 feet. There should have been public consultations when this was done, but there were none. Who can confirm this state of affairs for me if NAV CANADA doesn't? And what should the penalty be for NAV CANADA? The protocol doesn't even specify any penalties.

ADM refuses to provide us with any statistics on the percentage of flights from the west or south that pass over Laval. Why do they fly over us and not over the south shore once in a while? Why don't they land from the west? ADM continually cites wind direction as the reason, but we can see that's not always true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please close, Mr. Prince.

[Raymond Prince]

ADM is not subject to the Access to Information Act or to review by the Auditor General of Canada. Its daily noise data are kept hidden. It decides on exceptions to night take-offs and landings.

If Minister Garneau really cares about our well-being, Transport Canada must take back ownership of Canada's skies or, at the very least, rein in the organizations to which the government has entrusted them. After all, who do the skies belong to?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

Mr. Iacono, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I especially want to thank my two constituents for taking the time to give us a detailed explanation of what they are going through right now.

Last summer, I told you I would do everything in my power as an MP to invite you here to Ottawa so you could explain your situation properly.

There is still a fundamental question to be answered. The skies are there for planes to fly through, as we've said. What would you say is the most important thing we could do to reduce the noise and give you some peace and quiet? What's the easiest action we could tell Transport Canada and Nav Canada to take?

Mr. Prince, Mr. Laquerre, when I was listening to your testimony, I realized you've become experts in this area. I know this is a very emotional subject for you both. What solution would you suggest to us? This committee's goal is to propose solutions to our department in the hope that you can get some peace and quiet.

[Raymond Prince]

First of all, you should institute a real curfew, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., so that people can get eight hours of sleep. That would be the first thing to do. You need to declare a moratorium immediately, before you start studying this issue. Next, you should look at flight altitudes.

I mentioned oversight. In Europe, there are independent bodies that handle public complaints and fine carriers for violating curfews or noise standards. That would be the first thing to do after the curfew comes into effect. An organization like that would study the corridors and examine landing or take-off techniques that are used around the world to reduce the impact of noise on people living in residential areas in cities and municipalities. I think that's the first thing that should be done.

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

Thank you, Mr. Prince.

Mr. Laquerre, do you have anything to add?

[Paul-Yanic Laquerre]

Mr. Iacono, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your dedication to this issue. I also want to thank you for giving us the chance to take part in today's meeting.

I see two solutions. The first would be to change the air corridors. In the map attached to the letter I sent to Mr. Garneau, you can see the Laval area and Highway 19. Right now, planes are flying over the urbanized area west of Highway 19. But what do we see east of Highway 19? The Duvernay woods and farmland. We also see that Highway 440 follows a line running almost exactly east-west within the air corridor of planes coming into Montreal. Nav Canada isn't taking into account the urbanization that has happened, for better or for worse, over the past 40 years. Residential developments have been built, but Nav Canada isn't taking them into account and is maintaining the same air corridors that were in place in the 1970s.

Aircraft are passing directly over the large urbanized area west of Highway 19 and straight through the middle of the entire urbanized area north of Highway 440. However, it would be possible to take the existence of Highway 440 and the farmland into account and move the corridor by just a few hundred metres, or at least try to find a solution. That doesn't seem to be happening, since Nav Canada has never done it.

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

What's your second solution?

[Paul-Yanic Laquerre]

In my speech, I talked about the continuous descent approach method. As you know, the Montreal airport is surrounded by non-directional radio beacons that pilots use as navigational aids.

I'm not an aeronautics expert, but from what I understand, the situation right now is that a plane landing in Montreal can descend to 4,000 feet once it passes the beacon known as Maire, which is located 42 nautical miles from the runway. It will generally hit an altitude 3,000 feet when it's 27 nautical miles from the runway threshold, well before reaching the Sloka and Lonna beacons, which are 14 and 13 nautical miles from the runway. The plane's engine is then operating at 85% of maximum speed, which is very noisy. If the CDA method were adopted, planes would have to fly over the Maire beacon at 9,000 feet, which is much higher, and then start their final descent at about 30,000 feet, gliding the final distance with the engine at idle.