44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 12, 2023 10:00AM
- 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 Like a tragedy, this motion shows passengers and the public just how out of date the standards are and the extent to which existing rules in Canadian airports are unsafe and not in compliance with the regulations.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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/23 6:19:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, anyone who has experienced a major fire knows how vital firefighters' expertise and specialized equipment are in situations where, often, every second counts. That is why it is not surprising to learn that, according to a 2021 Leger poll, firefighter is the most trustworthy profession, trusted by 95% of respondents. Politicians are trusted by only 31% of the population.
All of the members here will agree that all air travellers deserve safe landings at Quebec and Canadian airports. However, according to the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, over the years, Transport Canada has allowed airports to reduce service standards to the bare minimum. In some instances, there are only one or two firefighters on call while planes carrying hundreds of passengers are taking off and landing. Transport Canada has been warned about this many times over the years. Unfortunately, those warnings have gone unheeded until now. When the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees shared its concerns about the problems with the regulations that impact airport firefighting, Transport Canada advised that their primary concern is the financial viability of the airports.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, which represents over 23,000 professional firefighters, concluded that significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk. Of note is the fact that the regulations fail to specify rescue as a required function of airport firefighters.
The Canadian aviation regulations, or CARs, require only that firefighters reach the midpoint of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period. That means the response time for an accident at the end of a runway will be a lot longer. The CARs do not take into account certain rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, a United Nations agency that helps 193 countries.
ICAO is the global forum of states for international civil aviation. It develops policies and standards, undertakes compliance audits, and performs studies and analyses. It provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through the co-operation of its member states and stakeholders. Its head office is in Montreal. According to ICAO, firefighters at major Canadian airports should have the resources they need, as has already been mentioned, to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on a runway in three minutes or less. As my colleague said earlier, three minutes is how long a plane can withstand flames before they melt the fuselage and spread everywhere, from one end to the other. Let us not forget that between 12,000 and 220,000 litres of fuel are stored under passengers' feet. As is the case when there is a fire in a building, the main cause of death in an aircraft fire is smoke. Airport firefighters must be able to interact directly on board the aircraft in the event of a fire.
The Bloc Québécois supports this motion because the fire safety standards set out in the CARs have not undergone a major review since the regulations took effect in 1996. We are asking Transport Canada to review the CARs, and we are supporting the demands of firefighters in order to prevent a tragedy from occurring in one of our airports. The current regulations do not specify that firefighters have a duty to attempt a rescue if a fire breaks out inside a plane. They are only obligated to extinguish the flames with water or foam in hopes that the passengers will be able to evacuate the aircraft themselves.
It is frankly absurd. They are supposed to wait for firefighters from neighbouring municipalities to arrive, yet municipal firefighters do not have the response times or training required to respond quickly and effectively to aircraft emergencies in restricted areas. Equipment, training and travel time requirements increase the risk of tragedy.
Moreover, simply hosing down the area, as currently prescribed, no longer meets ICAO standards. Firefighters should have the option of intervening directly, when the situation allows, obviously, by climbing aboard the aircraft to rescue passengers in difficulty and extinguishing fires at the source.
By adapting the CARs to meet ICAO standards, we will ensure that all airports meet the highest safety standards. I should note that, at present, there is nothing to stop an airport from adopting higher standards than the CARs. The result is uneven fire safety standards from one airport to the next.
For example, according to the Montreal airport, firefighters must be able to respond in less than three minutes, regardless of the location of the incident on airport property. Obviously, covering all runways in less than three minutes means more vehicles, more buildings and, of course, more firefighters, which means more resources. ICAO indicates that the regulations must establish a minimum number of firefighters on duty based on airport size, so that the travel time requirement can be met at all times.
The International Association of Fire Fighters points out that firefighters are required to carry out regular inspection and response tasks that take up part of their team's time. That is why it is imperative to properly assess firefighting personnel needs.
For example, the Montreal and Mirabel airports each have their own fire station in the immediate vicinity of the runways. Each fire station has four teams of firefighters who work in shifts to provide 24-7 protection. The Aéroports de Montréal fire service has its own training centre for conducting aircraft fire simulations and for training firefighters to respond to situations involving aircraft that contain highly explosive or flammable fuel.
According to the Aéroports de Montréal firefighting unit, the additional costs of bringing the CARs up to ICAO standards could be covered by a surcharge of less than a $1 per passenger. A dollar per passenger is a small price to pay for safety.
Additional resources are justified because even though aviation accidents are rare, the amount of fuel and the large number of passengers that the planes carry call for higher safety standards to be imposed. It can mean the difference between a terrible tragedy and an impressive rescue.
We really need to take action and adopt this motion. We need to move quickly. It is a matter of not only recognizing firefighters, but also allowing them to have the tools they need to do their job properly.
1077 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
