SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 266

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 12, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23
Ms. Louise Chabot
  • Dec/12/23 5:52:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I broke the rules. I wanted to acknowledge him because the Aéroports de Montréal Fire Service recognizes in this motion a unanimous desire to modernize the Canadian aviation regulations. It is urgent. They say this is a sincere and shared desire to improve safety for both firefighters and passengers. I also want to acknowledge my colleague from Mirabel for his work on this file and for his exemplary representation in a horrific tragedy that unfolded at the Mirabel airport. I think it is high time the federal government aligned the Canadian aviation regulations with international standards when it comes to rescue and firefighting at airports. Yes, the motion reiterates the International Association of Fire Fighters' demand. Their position is based on ICAO standards, which recommend that all points on airport grounds be reachable within three minutes. The motion would also authorize intervention right in an aircraft, which is not currently allowed. Like a tragedy, this motion shows passengers and the public just how out of date the standards are and the extent to which existing rules in Canadian airports are unsafe and not in compliance with the regulations. The Montreal airport firefighters made that abundantly clear. It is time to take action. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, is a United Nations agency that enables member states to co-operate on international civil aviation matters. ICAO's head office is in Montreal, Quebec. The organization really puts Quebec on the map. This is interesting because, as the organization's headquarters, Montreal should be a model of air transportation safety, not an example of obsolete federal regulations. Fire fighting services are key to an airport's safety program. An airport is only as good as its focus on safety. According to the Aéroports de Montréal firefighting unit, three minutes is how long a plane can withstand a fire before it melts the fuselage and spreads from one end to the other on the inside. At the moment, regulations require airport firefighters to reach the middle of the furthest runway within three minutes. Clearly, this cannot work. If the core mission is to save lives and ensure safety, we are far from achieving that goal. It is high time that things changed. Just imagine for a moment being a passenger. Many of us in the House have to travel by air regularly. Let us imagine that our plane is on fire. What do we expect? We expect to be rescued immediately and kept safe. That is also what firefighters want. That is what they are supposed to do. It is unconscionable that firefighters at an airport like Montreal's cannot perform the initial rescue on board an aircraft. This is currently the case under federal regulations. There is no valid reason why firefighters at major Canadian airports should not be responsible for performing this rescue. I would go even further in this debate. I would say that it is a problem that relates to recognizing the work of airport firefighters, a problem recognizing that firefighters have the skills, the qualifications and the mission to do their job. I would say they are heroes. The Bloc Québécois will certainly support this motion because it is time to modernize Canada's aviation regulations, which date back to 1996. The regulations have not been reviewed in 30 years. We should not have yet another example of federal regulations—because there are other situations where regulations have not been reviewed in other fields for many years—where outdated rules from a long-gone era are still being used and fail to support the vital security and rescue mission we have at our airports. I think the time has come to listen to the firefighters. The regulatory amendments they want are simple and, above all, essential. It is high time we took action to improve everyone's safety. Something is wrong when firefighters have to fight for this. Hours and hours are spent on ensuring that the regulations are followed. Hours are spent on promoting accepted safety rules. Many situations are unsafe. It takes a lot of reading. They are unsafe in terms of the number of personnel who seriously fail to meet mission requirements, and in terms of equipment and lack of training. It comes down to a failure to recognize this work. This situation absolutely must be corrected. It is clear that more vehicles, more response force provisions, more buildings to accommodate vehicles and, above all, more firefighters will be needed to respond to disasters and meet current needs. In conclusion, I think that there are many arguments in favour of acting efficiently and effectively. It is great that a committee decided to move a motion to study the issue more thoroughly, but there needs to be action. Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to table, in both official languages, the following document: a report on the unsafe situations at the Montreal airports. This document was produced by the Aéroports de Montréal Fire Service.
866 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 266 - Dec/12/23
Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)
  • Dec/12/23 6:28:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues here in the House who have spoken on Motion No. 96. The commentary has been really thoughtful and has illuminated an issue that has been hidden it seems for at least 25 years, and that is the gap between Canada's current aviation regulations and the standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Each speaker in the first round and in this hour has basically detailed the nature of those gaps in terms of response times to any point on an operational runway versus the midpoint, which is the current Canadian standard, or the lack of a mandate to rescue people from inside an aircraft, leaving firefighters officially responsible only to make sure a pathway leads from the aircraft through the flames so if anybody can actually make it out they can save themselves. These gaps in fire crews' mandates exist officially, but for anybody watching and now all of a sudden extremely worried about safety when one flies and particularly at an airport, it does not mean operations at the 25 to 30 Canadian airports with more than 180,000 emplaned or deplaned passengers per year fall short of one or more of the ICAO standards. Since we first spoke to this issue, I have heard from the two airports mentioned in my opening remarks. Senior management at the Ottawa International Airport tell me its firefighters are mandated to rescue passengers from inside an aircraft. YOW management say its response team is crewed, trained and equipped to do this. Some fire chiefs I have spoken to doubt municipal firefighters have the training to conduct these rescues, yet the International Association of Fire Fighters says that where airport crews are not trained, it is expected that municipal responders will fulfill this function. YOW management here in Ottawa tell me that, in fact, its firefighters train municipal responders. Airport management wants us to know that other safety measures have been taken, some of which are unique, such as grooving the runway to prevent a landing aircraft from hydroplaning in wet conditions. YVR in metro Vancouver has firefighting crews staffed, trained and equipped to rescue those inside a burning aircraft. The response time meets Canadian aviation regulations but not ICAO's. That said, YVR dedicated $5 million to double the number of firefighters and has brought two new state-of-the-art aircraft fire rescue trucks into its fleet at an additional $6.6 million investment. It is quite likely the safety measures in place at other highest volume airports maybe follow the same pattern. They meet and sometimes exceed Canada's regulations, but I suspect on the whole there is great inconsistency across the country. We cannot overlook the financial limitations some of our busiest airports face, and that is something we need to think about. There is one note in the 2003 Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement regarding the definition of “rescue” that should raise red flags for everybody in this House. It established a policy to ensure that the status quo in 2003 be maintained when it came to the types of activities included as aircraft rescue and firefighting services without imposing any additional obligations or costs. It would not be unreasonable for the average Canadian air traveller to conclude at the very least that financial implications would be a factor in setting rescue standards. In approving Motion No. 96, we would be challenging this. We would be reinforcing the principle that if something is mandated, there would be an obligation to get it done. By raising the question about the adequacy of and compliance with the Canadian aviation regulations, we would be opening the way for a more fulsome examination of gaps that may exist between best practices and the actual firefighting and rescue capabilities at Canada's busiest airports. In closing, we should not doubt for a moment that airport managers and their firefighting crews adopt safety as their top priority. The consequences of Motion No. 96 and our debates should be a closer examination of the issues we have raised, and perhaps through a study at our Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a study that leads to findings and recommendations that would reinforce public confidence in the exemplary safety record of air travel in Canada. I served on TRAN from 2015 to 2019 and this issue never came up. Now it has and now it is our obligation to see it resolved.
749 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border