44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2023 02:00PM
- Oct/25/23 3:07:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the opposition leader, when it comes to contracting, investigations are ongoing and processes have been updated.
He does not much care about facts or process, just his hidden agenda driven by ideology, an ideology rooted in denying that the government had to act fast in a once-in-a-century moment to keep Canadians safe. He does not want to talk about the pandemic. He does not want to talk about his behaviour during the pandemic and following it. He will continue to try to distract and deflect based on his ideology and based on the members of his team. It is very telling that the Conservative Party would choose not to prioritize Canadians' safety.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 6:05:53 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That:
(a) the House recognize that an assessment by the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk, by
(i) failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport fire fighters,
(ii) requiring only that fire fighters must reach the mid-point of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should, without delay, ensure that the Canadian Aviation Regulations reflect airport rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, specifically by
(i) giving fire fighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less,
(ii) specifying that a required function of fire fighters be the rescue of passengers.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 96 is to close what many, especially who know the fire and rescue profession, see as significant and dangerous gaps in the ability to respond effectively to aircraft accidents at major Canadian airports.
Motion No. 96 calls for the Government of Canada to close these gaps by amending the Canadian aviation regulations to bring them in line with standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency headquartered in Montreal.
Specifically, closing the safety gap involves three measures: including rescue as well as firefighting in the mandate for firefighters at Canada's major airports; mandating a response time of no more than three minutes for fire rescue equipment to reach any point on an operational runway; and specifying the number of personnel required to meet fire rescue standards.
People have been raising attention to the lack of a rescue mandate for at least 25 years. The April 1 edition of Fire Engineering reported a Department of National Defence document quoting an item in the Canadian Press, suggesting “firefighting standards at civilian airports in Canada aren't up to snuff and may even put lives at risk”. The report draws attention to life-threatening dangers faced by occupants of aircraft who are not able to walk away from a wreck because Transport Canada only requires airport firefighting crews to assist in rescue outside the craft. The DND reported that the primary responsibility for rescue from inside the craft is left to the airline's flight crews and local fire departments. I will say more on that a bit later.
In its 30th Canadian legislative conference, held in Ottawa at the end of March, the International Association of Fire Fighters raised the issue again. This time, we in Parliament have an opportunity to respond and close the gaps.
Transport Canada's standard 323 in its Canadian aviation regulations states, “an aircraft fire-fighting service is a contingent resource tasked with the primary responsibility of providing a fire free egress route for the evacuation of passengers and crew”.
Section 323.03, on general requirements, adds:
This standard is not intended to limit the fire-fighting service from providing services in addition to that of aircraft fire-fighting at the airport or aerodrome, nor to prevent it from dealing with other occurrences.
Some I have spoken to reflected that firefighters can be assigned other duties while on shift, such as cutting the grass, that could well increase the turnout time for a call. Regardless, the reality at most of Canada's major airports is that fire crews do not have the personnel or, perhaps, even the training or equipment to step beyond this basic mandate, which is now limited to fighting the fire, trying to keep an escape route open and hoping that whoever is inside the aircraft can make it out.
Transport Canada's outline of the requirements to comply with the current Canadian aviation regulations focuses on fire extinguishing agents and the testing of the equipment needed to ensure the correct discharge rate and the reach the foam can get to when out fighting a fire. The section on training of personnel focuses almost exclusively on responding to an aircraft fire, with one reference to emergency aircraft evacuation assistance. If this measure refers to anything more than keeping open an escape route through the flames, the reality of staffing makes it only aspirational at some, if not most, Canadian airports. In discussions with the firefighters association, I was told that the staffing requirements on a rig dispatched to extinguish a fire is two firefighters: One drives and assists the second firefighter to discharge the foam.
If firefighters are charged with the additional mandate to rescue aircraft occupants from inside the craft, I am told that they would almost certainly need to rely on the two-in, two-out rule: If personnel are sent into any burning structure, there must be at least two firefighters outside to be there if it becomes necessary to rescue their colleagues inside.
We cannot ask firefighters to risk their lives, as they most certainly do when they go in to rescue people, without the support and backup needed if things go terribly wrong. A two-person response team today would then become maybe four, six or more. Bolstered fire hall complements, plus any necessary equipment and rescue training, would all be necessary to bring the Canadian aviation regulations up to ICAO standards.
A number of us in this place are exposed to the broadest range of risks when we fly to and from our ridings to be here for our parliamentary duties and to go back home and help our constituents, and I am one of them.
An assessment of the fire and rescue capabilities in Canada puts Vancouver International Airport at, or near, the top. That is where I usually originate my trips to come to Ottawa. In 2022, YVR recorded 230,162 runway movements and passenger counts of over 19 million. This is a lot, though it is still far short of the prepandemic total of 25.9 million passengers, but it is quite likely that volume will be reached and exceeded relatively soon. I would estimate, judging from the passengers I see at YVR, that this year will probably see the old level reached quite handily. I am told that the Vancouver Airport Authority has voluntarily adopted standards that meet or are very close to the ICAO standards.
At the other end of the journey for most MPs from metro Vancouver, we have the Ottawa International Airport. It is cited by the IAFF as one of the most challenged in meeting ICAO standards. In preparation for today, I reviewed the “YOW 2038 Master Plan”. I looked through it, and currently, there does not appear to be any provision in that plan to close any kind of a fire rescue gap.
I am told Pearson airport in Toronto is close to meeting the higher standards, and most Canadian airports, at least the 25 to 30 larger airports with more than 180,000 enplaned or deplaned passengers per year that are subject to the Canadian aviation regulations, face greater challenges than Vancouver or Toronto.
The second gap is the response time to an incident. The ICAO standard is three minutes for a fire rescue response to any point on an operational runway. I am told the Canadian standard is three minutes to the midpoint of any operational runway.
Let us have another look at the Ottawa airport. The fire hall is located very close to the end of its longest runway, which runs north-south and is 3,049 metres long. Current regulations require firefighters to reach the midpoint in three minutes, and I am told that they can do that in just under three minutes. However, it would be a challenge for them, if we are looking at a worst-case scenario of four minutes or five minutes for a crew to receive an alarm, turn out and reach an incident at the farthest end of that longest runway. I have not been able to find any records on YOW's actual performance in exercises or incident responses, but a resource here with us this evening has said that they can do the three minutes. Beyond that, it is pretty dodgy.
By the way, when we talk about meeting the standards, we should not for an instant doubt the dedication and professionalism of the firefighters. The focus here is on enabling them to meet high standards efficiently and, above all, safely.
Ottawa's airport is one of those ones that relies on the aircrew on board a burning aircraft to get the people to the door and outside, where the current regulation says that the fire department has to keep a pathway clear so that the people can get away from the aircraft. If it is to be fire rescue, they have to rely on the Ottawa civic firefighting service. The fire hall on McCarthy Road is nine driving minutes from the airport, and the hall on Leitrim Road is 11 minutes away. That is driving time. That does not count the turn-out time or getting the person out of the back or wherever they happen to be when the alarm comes in.
To the extent that Canadian airports have been designed like YOW, it could very well be that meeting ICAO's response time would require the relocation of fire halls. As I mentioned, the fire hall at YOW is at just about the end of the longest runway. That leads to the issue of costs, of course. In a 2003 regulatory impact analysis statement, the definition of “rescue” was specifically drafted, “to ensure that the status quo will be unchanged with the types of activities included as aircraft rescue and fire-fighting services” without imposing any additional obligations or costs.
Let us think about that for a moment. In these times, when passengers pay a surcharge of, let us say, $12 a ticket for security costs and $35 or more, in fact, in airport improvement fees, the IAFF suggests that an additional surcharge of 50¢, a dollar or, in the case of a smaller airport, maybe two, three, four or five dollars might be necessary to fund the lifting of services up to the ICAO standards. Canadians love to travel, especially by air. I certainly see a lot of evidence of that here in Ottawa or in Toronto, which I go through. I occasionally see it in Montreal and certainly at YVR. Those airports are jammed. I am seldom on an aircraft that has any empty seats. In spite of the narrative that says the country is broke and nobody can do anything, there sure seems to be a lot of money around for air travel these days. Therefore, we have to wonder whether maybe a few bucks per ticket to bolster the ability of aircraft passengers and crew to survive an accident at Canada's key airports is really too much to ask. Of course, the proposition here is no.
In preparing for this debate on Motion No. 96, I have been inspired by the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, whose private member's bill, Bill C-224, which we passed unanimously, has paved the way for a national framework to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to improve access to cancer prevention and treatment. When it appeared I had this opportunity, she was the first to promote resolving the regulation gaps as an important, worthy and complementary initiative, one that could support our firefighters even further by delivering critical safety improvements for air crews, air passengers and, yes, firefighters too. I would like to thank the Library of Parliament and our legislative assistant Riley Sutton for their assistance in researching this issue. I would also like to thank, of course, the International Association of Firefighters and firefighters from the Ottawa airport, who are helping to keep this issue alive.
I am now looking forward to hearing the perspective of our colleagues, because when Motion No. 96 came out, we received notes from members of the other party asking what it was all about. We provided the information we had, and I know they have been doing their own research and will be in a position to maybe expand on some of the points I have been able to raise this evening. Therefore, I will be very pleased to cede the floor to questions if there are any and certainly to my colleagues to expand on the need for Motion No. 96.
2121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 6:25:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and engage in critical discussions about the policies that effect the lives of everyday Canadians. Today, we are being presented with a motion that calls for the adoption of International Civil Aviation Organization standards in Canada's airports for rescue and firefighting regulations. This could potentially increase fees imposed on passengers and shippers to cover the costs.
Safety is paramount and is certainly something that unites all of us. Conservatives believe that this is an issue that deserve more study. We will be calling on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, upon which I happen to sit, to take this issue up. We must carefully consider and evaluate the consequences of implementing these proposed changes.
The mover of the motion just spoke about the fact that Canadian airports are exceptionally safe. That is something we are all proud of. What is the signal we are sending in debating this motion today? Are we giving the impression that it is lacking?
Canada is not out of step with the rest of the world on this. Many countries, including our neighbours to the south, make necessary adjustments to ICAO standards to best suit their own unique circumstances. It is a standard practice that recognizes the need for flexibility, while maintaining high safety standards.
Why are we signalling there are perhaps deficiencies in our safety regulations? Canadian aviation regulations are designed to be robust and thorough. They are tailored to the specific needs of communities and circumstances. In fact, in some areas, such as aircraft rescue and firefighting training, we even surpass ICAO standards by threefold, demonstrating our commitment to safety and preparedness.
It is important to acknowledge that airport emergencies are well managed across Canada through close collaboration with community resource partners. Municipal police, ambulance services and firefighting resources play pivotal roles in emergency response. Airports cannot be expected to staff for every conceivable emergency scenario, so they rely on these mutual aid partners to ensure a comprehensive response. It is worth noting that all of our airports are already working closely with their local fire departments, actively planning and conducting exercises to ensure a swift and effective emergency response.
We can talk about Hamilton International Airport, which I am proud to say is located in my constituency of Flamborough—Glanbrook. It is the fastest-growing cargo airport in the country, plus it serves over a million passengers a year. It is owned by the City of Hamilton, so naturally, there is a strong partnership with the Hamilton Fire Department.
This partnership is already in place and exemplifies the importance of a well-coordinated approach to aviation safety. We have heard this from other airports across the country. They recognize the significance of a collaborative approach, which is why they have expressed concerns that the proposed regulation and added costs are unnecessary. That is why we need to study this further.
It is essential to consider that these additional expenses would inevitably be passed onto travellers and shippers, and would further raise the costs associated with air travel in Canada, which is already expensive on a global scale. In a country where air travel and cargo is already subject to significant fees and taxes, these costs are going to be one more thing added onto the backs of Canadians at a time when we are already dealing with 40-year-high inflation.
It is crucial to remember that increasing costs for passengers and shippers does not necessarily translate into increased safety. We must be mindful of the impact on Canadians' wallets.
Additionally, the regulatory changes proposed in this motion are designed to provide a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best approach. However, our vast and diverse Canadian landscape necessitates a more flexible approach to regulation. What works for one airport, may not be suitable for another. Flexibility in our regulations is essential to accommodate these variations.
We must recognize the merits of our existing Canadian aviation regulations and the partnerships we have built with community resources to ensure the safety and well-being of airline passengers. Thorough studies have been conducted, and sound research has supported it, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our current approach.
The proposed changes, while they may sound appealing on the surface, risk imposing unnecessary costs and red tape. There is just no clear evidence to suggest that this would result in a safer air travel environment. That is why we are proposing additional study on this.
755 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 6:31:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have turned everything off around me. For once, I am the one who is disconnected. That is a first.
I wanted to thank my colleague for moving this motion because airport safety is so important. What we read in the motion is rather shocking. It first talks about how there are significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at our airports. That is a matter of passenger and employee safety, but it is also a matter of the country's international reputation, since Canada is known for being a safe place to fly.
Here is what the motion calls for. It says that we need to change the safety standards in Canadian airports so that airport firefighters can reach any part of the runway in less than three minutes. Those are international standards, and Canada is lagging behind in terms of International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, standards. Right now, Canada requires firefighters to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes, rather than all points on the runway. The three-minute time frame is very important. We know that some runways are very long, particularly those at the Mirabel airport in my riding. That time frame can extend to four, five, six or even seven minutes.
We are talking about airport safety, and it can seem as though fires in and around airports never happen. Let me remind members that a tragedy took someone's life at the Mirabel airport on October 18, 2022. A vehicle caught fire at the airport. Aéroports de Montréal, the supposedly independent Crown corporation that manages the facility, decided not to send firefighters and instead waited for municipal firefighters to arrive.
A second call was made to notify the firefighters that there was a fire, and Aéroports de Montréal again decided not to send their firefighters. They have to come from far away. When Mirabel's municipal firefighters arrived, the individual had died inside his car. Municipal firefighters are not trained for that. These things happen. People often do not know that airport firefighters exist. However, when they are needed, it is a matter of life and death. They have to act quickly.
I would like to take advantage of today's debate to salute the 31 valiant firefighters who work at the two airports, located in Mirabel and Dorval. Nine are in Mirabel, and the other 22 are in Dorval. Just think, there are nine firefighters for one airport. These people risk their lives, and all they ask is to do their job; all they ask is to save lives. I salute these people, who put the safety of passengers and airport staff first.
I am thinking in particular of Philippe Gagnon, president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal, and of Alexandre Bertrand, vice-president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal. I am also thinking of Yvon Barrière and Jonathan Choquette from PSAC‑Quebec. For his bravery, I salute hero Francis Labrie, a firefighter who was suspended because he took the fire truck, went to the scene and tried to save a life. This is no laughing matter.
Aéroports de Montréal tells us that municipal firefighters are to intervene inside an aircraft. Canadian airport firefighters can hose down a plane from the outside, but they are not allowed to go inside the plane. This is against the rules of the ICAO, which is headquartered in Montreal a few kilometres from our airports. To be able to intervene in an aircraft, they need to have completed 333 hours of training. Municipal firefighters do not have this training, and they cannot get there in time. They lack the necessary resources.
In his motion, my colleague says quite rightly that firefighters need to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes. However, under municipal standards, firefighters arrive in 25 minutes.
People inside a burning aircraft die after three minutes from the smoke. It is extremely serious. Airport firefighters who follow international rules are needed because there are inherent risks to aircraft fires.
For example, aircraft fires release toxic gases that are specific to airports. There are chemical, physical and thermal dangers, the combustion of composite materials, the oxygen and halon tanks, the sulphur, the exhaust from the running engines, engine fires, the hydraulic systems, and radioactivity.
I do not want to hear that Montreal firefighters are trained for these specific types of risks. Think of the hot brakes, tire fires, flammable synthetic oil, door openings, deployment of emergency slides that are specific to planes, batteries that produce hydrogen gas and lead to a risk of fire and explosion, radar systems, the inflatable cushions, and so on.
We need to have trained firefighters who arrive on time. In France, Great Britain and most industrialized countries, the international standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or the ICAO, apply. In Montreal, where the ICAO headquarters are located, these standards are not used, which is rather ridiculous. It is shameful. Our colleague is giving us an opportunity to take note of these shortcomings today.
For example, the Canadian aviation regulations, called CARs, require only three trucks. Unlike the rules at most airports around the world, personnel is not specified, and Aéroports de Montréal takes advantage of this omission to excuse its understaffing.
For six years now, firefighters at Mirabel airport have not received any medical training. The Canadian aviation regulations say that medical training must be up to date. However, since Mirabel no longer has the required number of passengers and is supposedly a cargo-only airport, they say medical training is not required. All they are trying to do is save money at the expense of human lives, when we know that chartered planes, flight schools and general aviation operate out of Mirabel. The situation is extremely serious.
One of the main problems we are having in my riding has to do with the airport administration structure. It is a non-profit organization that essentially leases the land the airport is on for a very long time. These folks are being asked to make money, to make their activities profitable, to open shops and to break even.
At one point, Aéroports de Montréal got a new president. The first thing he did was cut the number of firefighters, the number of trucks available to respond and firefighter training. I guess this means that if there is ever a fire with radioactive elements, the airport firefighters will respond with three trucks and three firefighters. There are even cases where there are so few firefighters that the support truck carrying the equipment cannot even get to the plane. Firefighters are then told to hose down the outside the plane, to get there in three, four, five or six minutes, but to wait for municipal firefighters before boarding the plane. Now we are relying on the municipalities.
I commend the initiative of my colleague who moved this motion. He took action instead of waiting for dozens of deaths in a crash landing or fire. He is looking ahead. The people, the passengers and the staff come first for him.
There is an urgent need to act and amend the outdated Canadian aviation regulations. There is an urgent need for greater transparency in the management of our airport facilities. These facilities belong to the taxpayers, to Quebeckers, Canadians, the people of Mirabel.
At some point, these people need to be held accountable for their actions.
1289 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
