Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2022

Health

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government understands the urgency of the situation and is moving forward with an evidence-based approach to ending this crisis.

Overcoming the stigma associated with substance use is also essential in addressing this whole-of-society problem. It is vitally important to our work to turn the tide on this crisis. This includes investing over $30 million to help change attitudes and perceptions about people who use drugs and an additional $25-million commitment in our most recent platform to reduce the stigma.

Our government is working with the provinces and territories and with communities to develop a comprehensive health-based strategy to address this tragedy. This includes $500 million to support our partners in providing a range of treatment options.

We will continue doing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

Aviation Industry

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise this evening to discuss the troubling changes that the Liberal government has been trying to make to the non-certified aerodromes of this country. These facilities are community airports like the one in Ponoka in my riding.

The changes that are proposed regarding the instrument-approach procedures would make these vital facilities much less accessible, unless the facilities spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that they simply do not have. In fact, an analysis done in central Alberta suggests that it would double the number of days that airports and facilities are not able to be used.

These airports are vital, especially for rural communities. Stopping airports like the one in Ponoka from being able to receive planes for 14 or more days a year is not just a problem for pilots who fly for recreation. These are vital facilities for medical evacuation and patient transportation. The impact of this change could literally mean life or death for Canadians if they cannot get the emergency services that they need.

The Minister of Transport would never accept a policy that prevented ambulances from operating 14 days a year in his home riding in Mississauga. I am sure his parliamentary secretary would likewise speak out against this type of cut in service in Laval or Montreal. Therefore, why do they think it is acceptable for people in my riding or across many parts of rural Canada?

These airports are also important economic drivers that communities count on to get goods and people in and out of rural and remote regions. On top of the increased uncertainty for businesses and lost profits, productivity and time from these sorts of delays, it will also incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased costs as flights have to be rerouted to other airports farther away, increasing costs for overtime, fuel, accommodation and meals that these small businesses cannot afford during the difficult economic times they are already facing.

This whole situation appears to have been little more than a bureaucratic make-work project. I have no doubt that when the parliamentary secretary has her turn to reply she will go on at length about safety, undoubtedly a top priority for all of us. This is especially true for those in the aviation industry who make their livelihoods flying. They, more than anyone else, want to ensure that the regulations that we adhere to are at a high standard, so that every day they can get up, go to work and be confident that they will be able to come back home and kiss their families good night.

Representatives of every stakeholder group that I have spoken to on the issue have told me that this is a solution in search of a problem that we simply do not have in Canada. I have been told by representatives of organizations that help with the instrument-approach procedures for over 100 of these aerodromes, that they are aware of exactly zero accidents that have been caused because of the current standards.

It appears that Transport Canada is trying to harmonize our standards with the International Civil Aviation Organization, despite the rationale for those standards not being at all reflective of the actual experience or needs of Canadian aviators.

Of equal concern is that repeated requests for information about the risk assessment and impact analysis by stakeholders has been ignored for over two years. This has led to the belief that there simply was no proper risk assessment or impact analysis completed. Even during what can only be described as a check-box consultation that did not include those with expertise in the actual advisory circular they were seeking to amend, they did not provide an impact analysis. It is my understanding that a series of privately conducted impact analyses of over 100 of these impacted airports showed that nearly all would be negatively impacted, with no meaningful upside.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm if a risk assessment and impact analysis were actually completed?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I understand changes to regulations and guidance can be disruptive for air operators and the communities they serve. I assure members that we do not take them lightly. Where appropriate, we revise regulations and guidance in consideration of the feedback we receive.

Transport Canada advisory circular number 301-001, issue number three, which deals with the issue being raised by my colleague, was due to come into force on December 31, 2021. However, this was delayed after further consultation with stakeholders and a new version is being developed.

Aviation safety is a key priority for Transport Canada. The objective of any amendments to Transport Canada's guidance and regulations would be to further improve the level of safety within our aviation system. Transport Canada is continually working to ensure that our aviation safety system is among the best in the world. This is not bureaucratic busywork as the member suggests.

Alignment with international best practices ensures we maintain a safe air transportation system. The value of this approach is borne out by the excellent aviation safety record we have in Canada. Overall, the number of air accidents have been decreasing over the last decade. In 2020, a total of 170 air accidents were reported to the Transportation Safety Board. This represents a 25% decrease from the previous year's total of 227 accidents and is 32% below the average of 251 reported in the prior 10 years from 2010 to 2019.

Transport Canada will continue to work with key stakeholders, including Nav Canada, on the implementation of the revised advisory circular and to keep Canadians safe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I heard the parliamentary secretary say is that accidents are going down, so we need to increase the regulatory burden. If we are going to put lives at risk or force hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of structural changes to community airports, it must result in safer outcomes. There has to be a real-world problem we are fixing.

According to the ICAO, people over 65 or with type 1 diabetes should not be pilots for airlines, for example. However, in Canada, with our high quality of life and preventive care, we could allow people in both of these groups to fly without fear, so we filed differences with the ICAO to bring the regulations into line with the Canadian context. Therefore, why will the Liberal government not take this route and prioritize saving the lives of Canadians requiring emergency medical assistance?

I hope the government will stop and consider the devastating medical and socio-economic impact that this change will have in hundreds of communities across the country and commit to the proper consultations and the impact and risk assessments it has so far failed to do. I also hope it will maintain the status quo if there is no overwhelming reason not to.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue that the member is raising is important for his constituents, and I will definitely bring it to the attention of the minister.

Aviation safety remains of paramount importance for Transport Canada and our government, and there is good news on this front. The number of overall air accidents has been decreasing over the last decade, as well as the number of fatal air accidents. In 2020, there were 420 aviation incidents reported to the Transportation Safety Board. This represents a decrease of 54% from the 915 that were reported in 2019 and is 47% below the average of 790 incidents per year between 2010 and 2019.

These statistics are a testament to the good work being done by Transport Canada and by the air operators and pilots it regulates to prioritize safety. We need to continually remain vigilant and build on this enviable track record.

Transport

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

Mr. Speaker, in December I raised my question in the House of Commons about a proposed aerodrome in Georgina, in my riding of York—Simcoe. In other communities there have been high-profile incidents where corporations use the false pretense of building or expanding an aerodrome or an airport to cash crop dirt. Because aerodromes fall exclusively under the federal jurisdiction through the Canadian aviation regulations, these corporations are able to dump tonnes of contaminated fill with no regard for municipal or provincial soil laws.

Nearby, at Greenbank Airport in Port Perry, operators illegally dumped more than 2.5 million cubic metres of contaminated soil. They did this after they initially received permission to supposedly expand their facilities to runways. With the airport all but abandoned, there are now extensive and expensive costs required to clean up and restore the site. This practice has dire consequences for the environment and leads to significant financial hardship for municipalities and taxpayers.

This has happened in other places too, such as Tottenham and Burlington. Now Georgina residents are faced with a similar situation. The sole director of the companies that own the proposed site is the president of a Toronto-based waste disposal company. The spokesman and contact for the aerodrome's proponent, Mauro Marchioni, is a lawyer who has previously represented companies in the waste management industry. These companies have been fined by the Government of Ontario for illegally dumping contaminated fill.

At a special meeting of the Georgina town council to discuss this proposal, the proponent reluctantly admitted its plan was to dump more than one million cubic metres of fill on the property. That is more than 100 trucks a day. This is unacceptable. The proponent misrepresented the extent of its consultation with officials, the public and the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, and were combative and aggressive when local officials asked reasonable questions about the proposal.

There are other issues as well. The proposed aerodrome would be built on an ecologically sensitive area within the Lake Simcoe watershed. The site is protected wetland and is adjacent to active farmland and waterways that feed directly into Lake Simcoe. Also, the need and purpose of the aerodrome have not been made clear. There are numerous local and regional aerodromes in the area, and the planned length and direction of the runways will be unsuitable for most types of aircraft. This significantly limits its economic viability.

Unfortunately, Transport Canada does not account for these factors when deciding to approve or reject an aerodrome proposal. This means that even if all evidence points toward this being an illegal for-profit dumping operation, the current regulations state that these considerations only factor into the minister's decisions as they relate to aviation. Even though regulations provide for municipalities to enforce their own soil laws, the aerodrome proponents simply need to argue that fill is being dumped at these locations for aviation purposes under federal jurisdiction to avoid further scrutiny.

Is the Minister of Transport aware of these loopholes, and what are the government's plans to address this?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I truly understand the concerns of my colleague, the hon. member for York—Simcoe, and his constituents, and I commend him for his advocacy on their behalf.

The Georgina aerodrome will be a new construction. Canadian Aviation Regulation 307—Aerodromes—Consultations applies to new aerodrome development and requires the operator to undertake a consultation process with the interested parties. The public consultation phase ended on December 22, 2021. The proponent will then send a summary report detailing its consultation process to Transport Canada for review to determine if it meets the regulatory criteria.

Contaminated fill has been an issue at aerodromes in Ontario in the past. Transport Canada's responsibility is to ensure the safety of air operations in our country. It does not regulate the quality of fill used at aerodrome sites. This would fall under the purview of Environment and Climate Change Canada or the province, depending on the land use authority. Aerodromes are also subject to provincial laws, with some exceptions. For instance, if the developer of an aerodrome deposits fill on the aerodrome lands, such fill would have to meet provincial guidelines.

Determining who is responsible for an environmental contamination on airport lands is a case-by-case situation. In the context of the development of the Georgina aerodrome, the private owner could be held responsible for any environmental contamination resulting from activities where contamination is on the aerodrome lands and/or escapes outside of those lands.

The member's question also provides me an opportunity to talk about the great work that Transport Canada is doing to help protect Canada's environment. For example, budget 2019 provided $700 million to support the increased uptake of zero-emission vehicles, including $300 million for a new purchase incentive program and $265 million to encourage business fleets to switch to these cleaner vehicles. As of September 1, 2021, more than 114,000 Canadians and Canadian businesses have benefited from this point-of-sale incentive, which will help reduce emissions by up to 160,000 tonnes each year. The funding also includes $130 million to increase deployment of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. This is in addition to the more than $180 million invested in expanding the coast-to-coast network of electric vehicle fast chargers on Canada's national highway system. That is just one example of the many significant measures our government is taking to protect our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's response and the minister's willingness to engage me and my office on this very important issue for my constituents in York—Simcoe.

I am not against building airports or aerodromes, and I am a private pilot myself, but it is clear that this process needs to be looked at. Dumping fill now is a lucrative business, and certain individuals have identified the Canadian aviation regulations as a great way to do it with no scrutiny at all. This jeopardizes the future, the actual future of aviation in this great country; it threatens the environment and it gives Canadians the impression that collaborative federalism just does not work for them.

This is not a partisan issue. I am here tonight advocating on behalf of my constituents for an acknowledgement and a response from the Minister of Transport that something needs to be done on this issue.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no loophole, as the member for York—Simcoe suggests. As I mentioned previously, generally speaking, aerodromes, airports and airport authorities are subject to provincial law, except where such laws impair federal aeronautics jurisdiction or conflict with federal law. For instance, if the developer of an aerodrome deposits fill on the aerodrome lands, such fill would have to meet provincial guidelines.

Allow me again to take this opportunity to highlight the significant steps Transport Canada and our government have taken to protect our environment. For example, to further support the transition to low-carbon transportation systems, this government has established very ambitious targets for the sale of zero-emission vehicles in this country.

Time does not allow me to continue, but these are just some of the many measures we have taken to ensure a cleaner environment in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank everyone for their interventions this evening.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)