Transport Committee on June 13th, 2024

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Next we have Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Davidson, the floor is yours once again. You have five minutes, sir.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to pick up where I left off, it's nice to see that you're listening and that action will be taken.

We're talking about economic viability in rural Canada. What was shocking to me about wanting to construct an aerodrome in Canada was that Transport Canada does not look at any economic viability or a business case for an aerodrome. That was outright shocking to me.

There are two other things that should be concerning for the members of this committee. Transport Canada—think about this, in the age we're in now—approved an aerodrome site for two runways that do not point in the direction of the prevailing wind. They're to be constructed at 991 metres. That's 3,250 feet. Why would that be concerning to Transport Canada? Well, it's because anything over 1,000 metres requires a federal economic assessment. Both these runways were approved at 991 metres. My spidey senses go off right away: Why would that be?

The other thing that I think our officials here would understand is that if you were building a new airport, surely if Transport Canada looked at economic viability, you would want a runway at 5,000 feet. Would you not agree?

[Serge Bijimine]

It depends on a number of factors.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Well, I think the factor, if I may say so, is that if I built a new runway, I would want an ILS, and 5,000 feet is the minimum for an ILS. The proponent said they were going to use a Buttonville NDB. It's my understanding that the federal government is actually decommissioning NDBs. Is that not correct?

[Serge Bijimine]

I'll turn it over to my colleague Andy.

[Andy Cook, Associate Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport]

I can speak to that.

First of all, thank you for the question.

There is a trend across Canada to decommission NDBs, non-directional beacons, as ground service or ground navigational aids.

What's being used as a replacement or as an alternative is, to a large extent, global navigation systems, space-based systems, which are much more accurate.

Non-directional beacons imply all kinds of errors. My experience with them as a pilot is that if you dip the wings of your airplane, it changes the angle you're pointing towards the non-directional beacon—

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Cook. I just have limited time.

I think a reasonable person would want to ask questions. If you were building a runway under 5,000 feet at 3,200 feet, 100 feet short of triggering an environmental assessment; not looking at having an ILS put in place; looking at using an NDB when they're being decommissioned; and the runway is not pointed in the prevailing wind direction, I think for you, being a pilot, that would be a head-scratcher.

Would that be a reasonable assessment?

[Andy Cook]

I would say that on a very short runway like that, an ILS is an instrument landing system, an instrument approach that is typically not used as much by general aviation aircraft to the same extent as other aircraft landing on those very short runways, so there may not be a business case for it.

I don't have specifics on that aerodrome in question, but I'm sure that if we could get the specifics of that particular aerodrome, we could get back to the committee in a timely fashion with the response.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I appreciate that. I'm just saying that if I were building a new airport, those are the things that I'd be looking at if I were Transport Canada. It would not be to utilize a back-course localizer or an NDB; I would be looking to build an airport to make an economic case for it. Transport Canada does not look at any of those things. That was shocking to me.

This committee has heard about issues in the Arctic related to planes not being able to land on gravel runways in the far north. Talking about economic viability and Canada's sovereignty, this is obviously a concern for consumer air travel as planes with those capabilities are phased out.

What about the Royal Canadian Air Force? How can we ensure our Arctic security and sovereignty when our planes can no longer land in the north?

Mr. Cook, you know that the Boeing 737-200 is the only aircraft for which you can have a gravel kit. They're going to be phased out. This committee heard testimony here about gravel runways in the north. It has now become very concerning, and very concerning for food costs. The Government of Canada has just purchased F-35s that cannot operate on gravel runways at all.

I'm out of time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll give you 15 seconds to pose the question. I think it's a good one.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Where are we with the Arctic and aluminum runways? Maybe you could let us know.

[Andy Cook]

Thanks for the question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, we are working actively with the alternate services group. I believe you had a representative who is a proponent of aluminum runways speak to you very recently.

There are various types of alternate surfaces. Transport Canada approved the use of thin bituminous surfaces, which is largely a Saskatchewan issue, as an alternate hard runway surface. We're working with industry. We understand the importance and the need for aircraft to land in the north. I'm pleased to say, as an RCAF veteran, that I've landed on gravel runways many times in a C-130 Hercules.

The C-17 Globemaster, the very large transport aircraft, is approved for that as well, or at least it was when I served.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Next we have Mr. Badawey. The floor is yours for five minutes, sir.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Davidson as well for asking those questions. The whole purpose of this study is to look at how we can be more productive with respect to the testimony that we're receiving from the witnesses. We're fortunate today to have witnesses who have flown before, as well as from Transport Canada, which has been on this issue for quite some time. When the report is actually generated from the testimony that's received by the analysts, I'm sure that the minister is going to come back with his department and his team and with lots of recommendations on how we move forward.

Specific to Mr. Davidson's comments, I understand some of the situations he's finding himself in in his riding, especially as it relates to remediation and looking at doing site-specific risk assessments, and then working with the province as well with respect to assessments and finding out what those PPM levels are—those parts per million levels—and different options related to remediation, and also working with other partners such as the communities to achieve the same.

Getting a bit more granular on the assessments with the aerodrome, my first question is to Mr. Bijimine with respect to whether the committee would be expecting, in the response to the minister, further information as it relates to the aerodrome.

[Serge Bijimine]

Definitely. The question's been posed, and we will look at it and try to find as much information as possible. I'm not personally aware of it, but I will commit to finding out within the department who is and to providing the information that we find.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

Mr. Cook, with respect to the gravel runways, are we to expect some information relative to that? I'll take it a step further, to information that would then address Mr. Davidson's concerns.

[Andy Cook]

Thanks for the question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, we're working actively with the industry and the stakeholder group that is proposing the use of alternate runway surfaces. We understand very much the need for aircraft to service the north and are very much aware of the issue that Mr. Davidson raised with respect to the Boeing 737-200.

There is an issue that requires both certification of the runway surface type and also certification of the aircraft itself to land on those runway surfaces. That requires involvement from the original equipment manufacturers and occasionally can necessitate additions to the aircraft manuals that permit the flight.

So far, OEMs have not indicated a willingness to look at that side of the issue in great detail, but we are working with them actively. It is a very important issue that needs to be addressed in order to continue to permit the safe operation of air assets in the north.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'll preface my next question by stating—and I apologize for being repetitive—that this is why we're here. Putting the politics and the partisanship aside, we're here to get the job done. Regardless of where or what side of the table those concerns come from, the expectation is that the testimony that's received by the analyst comes back in a report, and with that it moves on to your team, and then the minister responds with the recommendations from what we then hear from the witnesses' testimony. Again, the reason we appreciate so much your being here directly is that in that way we can hear first-hand some of those concerns and some of those issues.

My last question, and I'd like to give you some time for answering, is with respect to what I brought up at the last meeting about trying to leverage, I guess, a whole-of-government and all-in approach to transportation in the north. Yes, we're talking about air, but there's also the possibility of multimodal and intermodal services for the movement of people and goods. Of course, I say “leverage”, because it's the same cost, the same method of transportation that might be accrued over time based on what's available in those individual jurisdictions.

Again, can we expect, when we get the recommendations back from you, based on what you hear from us, that it's not just going to be about air, but the possibility of leveraging those capital and operational expenditures to include an all-in approach to moving people and goods so that, as Mr. Davidson mentioned earlier, we'll also see efficiencies based on the transport of not just people but also goods, such as food, into the north?

[Serge Bijimine]

Thank you for the question. I definitely agree.

I think the solution will require everything you just mentioned. It will require efforts and partnership with a range of parties across the ecosystem. The federal government will need to play a part, as will provincial and territorial governments and, potentially, some municipalities, airlines and airports. It's about a lot of levers in different places.

A study like this helps bring everything under one roof. I'm definitely looking forward to the recommendations of the committee—and what the response of Transport Canada will be.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Thank you, Mr. Bijimine.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bijimine, I want to talk to you about something else. During their testimony, the representatives of the Union des municipalités du Québec mentioned that the airports capital assistance program seemed to be very inadequate and that the amounts had not been indexed for about 20 years. They found that they stayed the same year after year. The program envelope is about $40 million, which makes it possible to renovate approximately one airport per year.

I would like to know whether you're aware of the inadequacy of this program. There isn't just one airport in the country. Perhaps you could tell us how many there are, but I'm sure there are many.

[Serge Bijimine]

Yes, there are many. I'll start answering the question while my team looks up the exact number of airports in the country. I know there are 26 that are part of the National Airports System, but there are several that are not.

You're certainly right. We would like the airport capital assistance program enhanced to allow more projects to be carried out. We'll continue to look for opportunities to replenish the funds. It's always better to have more, no doubt, but at the moment we're trying to fund as many projects as we can and work with what we have.

To answer your question, there are 300 airports in Canada.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to raise another point.

Representatives of the Union des municipalités du Québec and others who have appeared before the committee or who also advocate this policy would have liked to see a review of the existing legal and regulatory framework. They'd like to see local initiatives to serve regions through calls for tenders or a governance system, as is done for bus transportation, for example. The idea would be to give greater flexibility to the regions that want to take charge of their own regional air transport needs.

Is the department aware of that? Is it open to the idea of amending the legal and regulatory framework to allow such initiatives in the future?