Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank each of the guests for being with us this morning. You're arriving almost at the end of this study, and there is a very broad consensus in your testimony. I have several questions and would ask you to provide brief answers so I can get as much information as possible. I am now preparing recommendations to table, rather than understanding the issue, since we've already been presented with the real picture.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Natalizio strongly suggested recommending the creation of an ombudsman position, for example. I would like you to tell me quickly if you find this an interesting avenue. If not, would you give more priority to Transport Canada's reappropriating a number of powers that it had before the creation of NAV CANADA, for example, and that it should have?

I would like to hear the answers of Mr. Kaiser, Mr. Lachapelle and Mr. Natalizio, in that order.

[David Kaiser]

I will give you the same answer: this need is real. If Transport Canada is the authority, that's fine, but then it's about bringing the right people to the table and aiming for a more permanent structure and policies to control noise.

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

Thank you.

What do you think about it, Mr. Lachapelle?

[Pierre Lachapelle]

Responsibility should be assigned to Transport Canada, with accountability to the public.

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

Thank you.

Would you like to add anything, Mr. Natalizio?

[Antonio Natalizio]

We have a situation where both Nav Canada and the airport authorities are accountable to no one. Health issues are not going to be addressed by organizations that have a private interest. These are issues that have to be addressed by the government. There's no other way.

I've studied airports around the world. The best ones—the ones that have night curfews, that have restricted hours of operation that are eight hours long and not just six hours, as we have at Toronto Pearson, for example—

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

Sorry—

[Antonio Natalizio]

—they are done by regulation, not by goodwill. It's clear.

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

Could you also talk to us about the notion of data? The graph you sent us, Mr. Lachapelle, speaks for itself.

Is the data you collect at your stations recognized when you interact with the Montreal-Trudeau Airport consultative committee or with NAV CANADA or Transport Canada, or are you told that this data is not conclusive?

[Pierre Lachapelle]

Our measurements are made at our measuring stations, which are equipped with devices that are not certified or approved internationally. However, they have been validated by devices of this type. If our stations have a defect, it is because they exaggerate airborne noise by 2 decibels, which is not significant when the reading is between 70 and 80 decibels.

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

I fully understand.

[Pierre Lachapelle]

The authorities reject them, but we are eager to see the data of Aéroports de Montréal. That data is secret. This is a democratic society, and Aéroports de Montréal has secret data.

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

I understand the problem. Not only do you not have access to the data and recommendations will have to be made, but the authorities don't recognize yours, which are based on the same type of devices.

Mr. Kaiser, you said that internationally, it was becoming increasingly clear. However, the Minister of Transport, in almost every one of his bills, always talks to us about harmonization. It is clear, as we have seen, particularly in the case of the passenger charter, that the European Union is far ahead of us.

Is there a model country or model law that we should use as a basis for our recommendations?

[David Kaiser]

That's the burning question.

Instead, I would tell you that we have made a lot of progress in Quebec over the past three to five years. For example, there is ongoing work to adopt a provincial noise policy, which is in part a result of work undertaken in Montreal 10 years ago.

It would really be difficult to draw inspiration from a legislative framework that is very different from ours, such as that of the European Union, and to try to draw conclusions from it. I think we should rely on other parameters instead. We could study the reciprocal influence of environment and health or transport and health, and then use the results of these studies to create our own model. Things are going very differently in Europe.

Quebec has done a lot of work on this issue, and we could learn from it and build on it.

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

Thank you.

Do I have a minute left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, you have one minute left.

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

With regard to the public health problem related to noise around airports, aren't we also witnessing a change in the urban landscape? I mean, the wealthiest people don't hesitate to move as soon as they realize the problem caused by the proximity of an airway.

Are we witnessing the creation of poorer neighbourhoods where health problems will increase, because of this exodus due to the noise problem?

[David Kaiser]

It's a very complex issue. I can answer that this is the case in general, but not for this specific issue at the moment.

I will be very honest about this. With regard to environmental and transportation noise in a city like Montreal, it is clear that the most disadvantaged people are those who are most exposed because of their location near noise-generating factors.

However, for reasons that go back several years, this is not necessarily the case at the airport. It would be dishonest to say otherwise. No doubt noise reduces home equity, but in Montreal, the problem of aircraft noise is a somewhat special case in relation to health inequalities.

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

Is it the same for Ontario?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin. I'm sorry.

Mr. Hardie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As the witnesses can tell, we're compressed for time.

If we ask for short answers, please feel free to follow up with something a bit more fulsome if there are more points you want to make.

Is it Dr. Kaiser or Mr. Kaiser?

[David Kaiser]

It can be either, but I'm a doctor.

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

Okay, it's Dr. Kaiser. I wish we would put proper salutations in our notes here.

On the issue of daytime versus nighttime, we take the point that sleep deprivation caused by interruption is not a very good thing.

In the daytime, it's more of an annoyance feature, and obviously, as much as people want flights to be reduced at nighttime, we can't make the same argument in the daytime because of the economics of the airport and what it needs to do.

If you were sitting in our chair and looking at making recommendations, would you suggest that we parse the nighttime effect versus the daytime effect?

[David Kaiser]

From a scientific perspective, definitely, but we also have to think about what can actually be done.

I think overall exposure to noise and daytime exposure to noise are maybe more in the domain of urban planning, zoning, sound insulation, and making sure that we don't expose more people—for example, that we don't build buildings right next to airports if we can avoid it.

With the nighttime noise, if you could snap your fingers and have no more planes after 11 at night or before seven in the morning, that problem would be gone, even if you have people living next to the airport.

I would definitely separate those out.

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

I'd like to challenge all of you to take a 360° look at this, because the focus is on airplane noise. If the airplane noise went away, a lot of people would notice that there are a lot of other noises out there too.