Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[Matt Jeneroux]

Madam Chair, the request was to bring back examples of when it's been used in the capacity that you're using it. It's been used in the House in terms of saying word for word the same speeches, but in terms of what you're using it for, the committee would love to see examples of when it's been used in the past.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If you would like to challenge the chair, certainly, Mr. Jeneroux, you're welcome to do that.

I will attempt to supply to you what I have, and I doubt that there will be examples, because I just don't think I'm going to ask the clerk to go looking for examples. If you're unhappy with my ruling, you certainly are welcome to challenge the chair, sir.

[François-Philippe Champagne]

Madam Chair, I don't want to be repetitive, but I'd just like to thank the members for their questions and their passion in delivering 21st-century infrastructure for Canadians. I think it's the best way to attract talent and investment to our country, and we will continue. I would be happy to come back to answer any questions from the members.

Madam Chair and colleagues, thank you all for welcoming me here this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will suspend momentarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

We will have half an hour to review the study we're doing on assessing the impact of airport noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

With us we have Nick Boud, Principal Consultant for Helios.

Mr. Boud, you have five minutes to address, please, or maybe six, since you're the only witness, and we look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

[Nick Boud, Principal Consultant, Helios]

Okay.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting Helios to appear before you today.

Helios is a U.K. aviation consultancy working for clients around the world and across the whole of the aviation industry. I lead the airport consultancy business within Helios and have 26 years of aviation experience. Helios is currently contracted to provide independent technical analysis and support to the GTAA as they move forward in the delivery of their latest five-year noise management action plan.

Over the past two and a half years, Helios has completed one study for Nav Canada, two for the GTAA, and one for Aéroports de Montréal. I have submitted four reference documents ahead of today, of which the first two were written by Helios. I'll come on to explain each of those documents.

The first one is the “Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review”, prepared for Nav Canada, which provides noise mitigation recommendations and conclusions focused on the Toronto airspace, as well as a lot of informative background information.

The second document is “Best practices in noise management”, which was prepared for the GTAA and provides an excellent overview of 11 different noise management practices across 26 international airports that are comparative to Toronto Pearson.

The third document is an analysis paper prepared by the Airports Council International and published earlier this week, addressing the future of aviation noise. This was prepared in response to the recent release by the World Health Organization on their latest environmental noise guidelines.

The final document that I've submitted is a paper from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The paper concludes that the data used by the World Health Organization and the analysis conducted in establishing the relationship between aviation noise and annoyance has, in the author's words, had “a huge impact on the final recommendations”. The author goes on to conclude that the recommended noise level to avoid adverse health impacts from aviation noise should be eight decibels higher than those proposed by the World Health Organization. An eight-decibel increase is substantial. It is generally accepted that the human ear perceives a 100% increase in volume for every 10-decibel increase.

Aviation noise management is a complex, multi-faceted topic, and I'm going to have a chance to only make a microscope dent in it today.

Helios finds the same aviation noise complaints and challenges everywhere we go. However, the solutions differ, because the urban, social, geographic, political, regulatory and operational environments are never the same.

I must apologize, for I am about to make a generalization. It is the aircraft that makes the noise, yet time and again, the party not present at public meetings, and generally the last at the table, are the airlines. Meaningful progress is only possible if all stakeholders are present at the table on a voluntary basis, work corroboratively, are prepared to give and take, make tough decisions and are committed to the objectives of delivering noise reduction and mitigation.

Moving noise from community A to community B on a long-term or permanent basis for no other reason than to pacify community A is not a solution. It is only likely to inflate the problem exponentially. The short-term relocation of noise on a predictable and regular basis, often referred to as “noise sharing” or “noise respite”, can be a valuable mitigation in some situations. Many airports have worked for decades and invested millions of dollars to reduce or mitigate noise, yet they still have a large number of residents who are not satisfied. This does not mean that we should not continue to try, as major improvements have been made and there is more that can be achieved in the weeks, months and years ahead.

One of the common questions raised by this committee is about what national standards there are to protect people from aviation noise. As far as I'm aware, there are two in Canada.

The first is set by Transport Canada and requires airports to prepare a noise exposure forecast, which is used to inform urban zoning strategies. The acoustician, Dr. Colin Novak, spoke about some of the challenges with using the NEF metric. I suspect, based on trends elsewhere in the world, that public tolerance of aviation noise has reduced since the NEF 25 and NEF 30 levels were set by Transport Canada, and I offer that the majority of noise complaints come from people outside of the geographic areas enclosed by these NEF contours.

The second standard is the aircraft noise certification requirements specified by ICAO, which have become more stringent with each generation of aircraft, meaning that aircraft have become quieter. Aircraft remain in active service for 30-plus years, so it can take a long time for noisier aircraft to be retired.

I would like to provide an element of perspective on what flights are in the night at Toronto Pearson. An analysis being undertaken by Helios Technology Ltd. for the GTAA shows that over 80% of night flights are passenger services, with the remainder being cargo, at 10% to 15%, or general and/or business aviation.

Night flights account for 3% of all flights at Toronto Pearson. Airports and community groups argue about whether the number of noise complaints recorded is an accurate indication of the scale of the problem. I counsel that you look at complaints as only one piece of the wider evaluation as to the scale of aviation noise as a problem. There are many factors that mean you cannot directly compare the number of complaints between airports. Identifying the percentage of new complaints each year can be an informative metric, but again, it should never be considered in isolation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the committee members have many questions.

[Nick Boud]

I have four lines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please continue.

[Nick Boud]

Helios Technology would happily provide further support to this committee, but I hope you understand that the reality is that we are a commercial organization and must limit our non-fee earning work. Up to this point, we have invested our time on a voluntary basis, and I hope our input will be valuable.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

It's on to Mr. Liepert for four minutes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, sir, for your work.

One of the things that I think the committee has had trouble determining—I know I have—is who owns this issue. It seems like the airport authorities say, “We only land the planes that want to land here.” Nav Canada says, “Our job is to make sure they land safely.” It seems like Transport Canada has kind of hived off responsibility to Nav Canada.

Suppose we were to come forward with certain recommendations. Let's just pick one out of the air, one that has been suggested by numerous witnesses: banning night flights, for example. In your study of this issue, in your work, who do you see would actually have the ability or the authority to do that?

[Nick Boud]

From experience in other nations around the world, the only people who can do that would be those in the government. It would require legislation to achieve that. That is what is being done. There are some voluntary restrictions, but to ban night flights, I believe, would take formal legislation.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

You seem to have indicated in your statement that this is multi-faceted and that there are various aspects that go into this whole issue.

We've certainly heard about the health aspect of it. We haven't heard a ton about the economic impacts of some of the things that would be the fallout from some recommendations. Can you talk a little bit about the complexity of taking one action that might have unintended consequences for a whole bunch of other things?

[Nick Boud]

I think it comes back to the fact that one solution doesn't fit all airports. Frankfurt, for example, which I know has been spoken of here before, has a period of the night when flights aren't allowed. Zurich has a period when they're not allowed, yet other airports in Germany and Switzerland do have night flights.

It can cause a relocation of services from the airport with the ban to other airports, which is moving noise from one location to another. The airlines, if there is a commercial business there, will find a means to achieve it. There is certainly an economic impact, and I know that the GTAA is looking to do an evaluation of the economics of night flights because we are employed to help formulate some of the traffic scenarios to feed into that study.

You cannot take one action without there being an impact on businesses not directly related to the airport, on employees at the airport and on the wider community.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Certainly, the consumer as well.... Our way of doing business as consumers has moved from shopping malls to online shopping, and that product has to get somewhere. I'm not suggesting that it has to come on a night flight. All I am saying is that it certainly creates, in all likelihood, more problems. Are there any thoughts about that in your work?

[Nick Boud]

The vast majority of cargo is moved on passenger aircraft. The percentage of cargo-dedicated aircraft is tiny, compared to the overall movements. Yes, the change in social attitudes towards shopping will drive up additional air cargo, but unless society changes its practices, it is not something we can avoid.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sikand.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was noted in the Helios report that Toronto Pearson's night period starts late and is shorter in duration than similar periods at other airports. What have other airports that are comparable in size and volume done to address the issue of noise?

[Nick Boud]

In relation to night, I believe there were two other airports with a similar length of night period as Toronto, but others certainly do have night periods of eight or nine hours. Some of them have implemented a quota system, where the noisier the aircraft, the higher the penalty implemented against a total point system.

Others have a total limit, similar to Pearson, as to the number of night flights they can handle each year. Others have put in additional charges, possibly two or three times the daily charge to operate at night. Others have, as does Pearson, a restriction on certain types of aircraft that can operate in the night period.

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

Thank you.

My second question is that in the Helios “Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review” report, it was recommended that Nav Canada should formally write to Transport Canada requesting them to consider the establishment of a sunset date of December 31, 2020, for the operation of the Airbus A320 series. However, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority has proposed incentives for the noise reduction modification to occur electively.

What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of an elective incentive program?

[Nick Boud]

They have been shown to work at other airports around the world. Lufthansa, in Germany, voluntarily modified their aircraft and were one of the first airlines to do so. Gatwick has introduced a financial penalty if airlines operate a modified aircraft.

It has to, again, be finding the right solution for Canada. I still stand by the recommendation that there should be action to persuade carriers to modify the A320. It is a simple refit or modification to the aircraft that can make a significant impact on noise.

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

Thank you.

This is a question I have been asking because I represent a riding that's pretty much adjacent to Pearson airport. Based on your exhaustive studies, particularly in and around Toronto Pearson, what are your thoughts on the establishment of a new airport within perhaps Kitchener or north of the escarpment, anywhere in and around the GTA?

[Nick Boud]

I say to the establishment of a new airport or through-traffic distribution being directed to other airports, it is moving noise. Also, communities tend to grow up close to airports because they are an economic driver and people will want to be close to that because that is where the jobs are.

Time and again, building new airports may seem like the solution, but in the long term you tend to end up with communities, development, moving closer to the airport. It takes very careful planning to make that a successful solution.