Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that
"WHEREAS Winnipeg is extremely fortunate to be one of the very few city airports operating 24 hours per day making it extremely valuable as both a centre for passenger and cargo transportation; and
"WHEREAS the Federal, Provincial and City Governments, as well as Winnport and the Winnipeg Airport Authority have all worked to increase the volume of air traffic using the Winnipeg International Airport; and
"WHEREAS all 3 levels of Government have made financial investments to increase use of the Airport; and
"WHEREAS with increased air traffic, there is a corresponding increase in noise levels; and
"WHEREAS there are no direct supports for the residents negatively impacted by airport noise; and
"WHEREAS such programs do exist in other urban areas such as Minneapolis, Chicago, Seattle, Kansas, Detroit and many other cities with 24 hour airports; and
"WHEREAS this type of program would have a number of benefits including the improvement of the residents' indoor quality of life, an increase in housing values and the creation of employment; and
"WHEREAS economic development must be sustainable.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Provincial Government consider a residential noise reduction program for Manitoba."
Motion presented.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to talk about a program which is a program that I have suggested the government investigate for the homeowners who are impacted by significantly increased airport noise due to the very positive developments at the airport. The Winnipeg Airport Authority has been very successful. Winnport has just negotiated a major trade deal with Asia, and the residents in St. James, my riding, are extremely pleased with the positive aspects of the development of the airport.
However, along with the business and the economic development of the airport is a certain responsibility on behalf of government at all three levels, and business I would argue, in a partnership to look at the responsible thing by providing some protection and some improvement for the homes that are impacted. It is not only in St. James that we have seen an increase of noise levels. It is also in Sturgeon Creek as well as Inkster ridings where the runways impact in those neighbourhoods.
We have seen some significant development in the airport, including some cargo transport companies. Purolator and FedEx have both moved in in the last year or two and have done some early morning scheduling where they take off in the early hours causing significant disruption. I have had numerous calls in terms of the air traffic in the early morning.
The idea of the noise insulation program was actually initiated at a public meeting where a local resident cited the American program whereby houses within a certain clearly specific defined decibel level, where the noise level is intolerable when they measure in that certain parameter, and that those homes would be eligible for certain retrogrades, certain upgrading. They include replacement of windows, some air-conditioning units, insulation, doors, windows, and there are specific home renovation or products that are particularly useful for noise attenuation. So the program has been extremely successful in the United States. They are all major cities with 24-hour airports to have such a program. I was able to then bring the program forward to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) who asked for details. I provided him with an outline of the American program. I am not suggesting that we adopt it completely, but it may be a model for us to look at and get examples of. I know that Minneapolis would be more than pleased to have us down for an examination of their program.
The program was reviewed by the Minister of Finance and actually referred to the trilevel development agreement. The first phase of the money had been committed, and that organization referred it to the airport noise committee which is a group of people that meets to try to deal with airport noise complaints; however, they do not have the ability to make a program decision like this. In fact, it will be up to the members across the House, and we are suggesting that a unanimous endorsement of this program at our level would lead to also a concurrence by the federal and municipal levels. So it would be a trilevel program that would indeed help those homes and families that are being negative-impacted.
Now, Madam Speaker, I want for the record that the people of St. James are extremely supportive of the airport. Many of them moved there before the airport was further developed. They understand that. They have lived with airports, airplanes for a long, long time, and there have been recent modifications to aircraft to actually reduce some of the noise levels, and there have been attempts to regulate the way planes land and take off that also minimize noise.
However, the overall impact, because of such a significant development in Winnipeg, is that there has been an increase of noise in the community. There are examples where pictures are shaken off the wall, china has broken, individuals are awakened at night, and I think that it is only reasonable to look at a partnership, a major economic development, we are hoping. Winnport is projected to bring in $500 million, Madam Speaker, and create, I believe, 5,000 jobs. all hope that is going to develop, and we are very supportive of that. A small investment in the community is not something I think that we should turn our backs on. I am hoping that the members opposite will give it due consideration and, indeed, look to investing in our neighbourhoods.
Madam Speaker, the people in St. James are long-term members. Many of the people have lived there for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Residents, I am sorry. I called them members of St. James. It almost is like a club when you live in St. James.
The homeowners in St. James have been there for a very long time, many of them. I think that this type of approach would not only help them in their personal lives in terms of dealing with the day-to-day inconveniences of that type of disruption, it would actually help in terms of the whole community because there is a significant concern that this development will have a negative impact, perhaps, when people wish to sell their homes, relocate, when they are looking at the property values in that area.
The City of Winnipeg had, I understand, a program which had a tax benefit. Unfortunately, the city pulled that program and it is no longer available for residents in the area. So I think it is indeed timely that we look at addressing this issue and do it in a fair and comprehensive manner.
* (1710)
The Winnipeg Airport Authority is a group of individuals from the city who have taken over the airport, as we well know, and, Madam Speaker, I believe that we are projecting--and I have here in the minutes of the airport vicinity development advisory meeting of January 13, I believe, that the Airport Authority is projecting that they will have a very positive financial viability over the next five years, that the WAA is expected to have a strong financial position and projected to have earned a surplus, a surplus of $33 million after the five years of operation.
Madam Speaker, what we are looking at is a program--and we have not done the detailed assessment but some projections estimate perhaps 400 homes that are severely impacted, that some would describe as would be like living on the runway, 400 homes, and if we looked at a maximum of a certain level in the United States, the refurbishing is up to a maximum level of $5,000.
Madam Speaker, I think that overall budget of $2 million given with enough preparation and detailed work, we are not looking at giveaways. We are looking at something that would be fair and reasonable and directed, and I think that would have a very significant impact on the families, the homes and the neighbourhoods in the vicinity of the Winnipeg Airport. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): I look at this resolution with considerable interest, because it is a topic that I have had a considerable amount of involvement with since I have been elected. I know that the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) may not have been around at that time in this Chamber when there were some real issues with regard to noise as far as the International Airport is concerned.
Let me begin by saying that we are extremely fortunate in this province to have the Winnipeg International Airport with its 24-hour operation and also to have Winnport, the people there that are the business minds and the people who are the engines that make the International Airport the profit and impact the whole community in that particular area, as well as the entire province.
The issue that I guess I have some concern with here, though, is that the honourable member is suggesting in her resolution that we, as a government, take some responsibility for soundproofing and creating the environment that would enable the householders to have a more comfortable environment with regard to noise. I think that if we go back a number of years, we have already gone through this Madam Speaker. The federal government brought in a program and it was under an environmental force that was driving it at that time, and I think that was in the 70s. Any home that was built before 1959 was able to have all these things done: soundproofing, insulation; and the environment aspect of it were met, the standards were met.
Now, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) is offering something else. I am just wondering under what initiative we are going to do this, because from my point of view, a lot of those homes, every one of those homes, with the exception of a few homes that have been torn down and new ones being built--and they are built to a standard knowing full well the fact that, yes, there is airport noise there--so that those newer homes would have been built to that standard. And the ones who have had the opportunity to insulate and to soundproof their homes would have been able to have done that under the federal initiative that was done quite a number of years ago.
Madam Speaker, I think that what we have to do here, these people have moved. I am also involved in the real estate business and have been since 1974 in that specific area. The people come and they go. And yes, there are people that get annoyed sometimes. I get annoyed at some time with some particular noise, but I have accepted the fact and that is what everybody who lives in that area, accepts the fact that they are living next to an airport and there is going to be some noise occasionally.
In 1991, to give you some background, in terms of where I am coming from, in terms of what we were doing, my involvement at that particular time was, I got a call from a particular individual that was annoyed because of the flight path being changed. That was done under the direction of some committee that was set up at that particular time, and it was done with good intentions, to change the flight path to bear six degrees on takeoff on flying south or to go over the Assiniboine Park Forest or to fly over unpopulated areas, basically. But when they made that decision to do that, they did not realize that bearing six degrees on takeoff that some days when the wind was 100 kilometres an hour coming down from the south, that their takeoff--they could be six degrees, they would be over Deer Lodge Centre, as an example, or even where they should be going straight out to Mount Royal Street, which is half a mile away.
Those are the things that I think that we have to do in terms of the management of these things. I think that over the long term of this the airports, the airlines are realizing that this is their bread and butter, and it is not going to make any difference whether we insulate and put windows on and those sorts of things, the aspect of the airplanes being less noisy. They are coming in; there is movement in that way to ensure that airplanes meet a certain standard by the year 2000. Beyond that, any airplane that is coming on and being used is going to be able to have those noise standards or meet that certain level.
You know, in my involvement as far as real estate is concerned, if you take a look at that area, St. James, Sturgeon Creek, anywhere where those flight paths are, there are two that are impacted in those areas. In Sturgeon Creek, in the Silver Heights area, there are about 1,200 homes in that area. They were built in the early '50s. Those homes have already been updated, and people have moved in there.
As a real estate broker, I have never had any problem in selling a home in there because of the air traffic. People will choose, will make their own decisions as to whether or not they are going to live there. They know full well that the airplanes are going to come and go. I think that from that aspect what I proposed to the people who are in the operation of the airport is to control the traffic that is coming in because if the wind is at a level of less than 10 knots, the airplane can land and take off in any direction that they want. My suggestion is that, okay, if they are coming in and the wind is under 10 knots, then fly them in, have them landing over the homes because when they are coming in, they are coming in a lot quieter than when they are taking off and have them taking off over the unpopulated areas, which is to the northwest and to the north. That can be done very easily.
I think it is a matter of management. I do not think we have to get into the matter of restructuring the homes in the area or whatever the amount is. The member with her resolution is talking about a tremendous bureaucracy as far as--she references the number of $2 million. Well, I do not know where she came up with her numbers, but I will tell you, if you offer that initiative, there are going to be a lot of people that are going to be coming to the trough on these things, and we do not know where it is going to end up. How do you limit the number of people who have access to that? The standards, those are things that I think people have to take responsibility themselves, and they have been doing that.
* (1720)
You know, in thinking about the aspect of this program, I could probably go out there, and this could be my election fund for being re-elected in the Silver Heights area and the Sturgeon Creek area. The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) could do the same thing. This is how ridiculous it is because that is all it could amount to. Yes, I have compassion for those people who live in those areas, but they moved there knowing full well. They knew when they moved there because the planes are coming and going, and I as a real estate broker, Madam Speaker, always tell the people, look, you are living next to an airport. Now, if you want to have some experience in terms of what it is going to be like, then come here at certain times of the day when the airplanes are flying and take advantage of that, and then decide whether or not you can live with that. If you cannot, then you go and find a home somewhere else, but you do not go and build a whole matter of restructuring homes in the area just because people want to take advantage of something that government is going to provide.
Madam Speaker, these are things that I think we could do an awful lot more in terms of helping and assisting these people in St. James and Sturgeon Creek or in the area of the airport. The member mentioned another area, the Inkster area, where a lot of those homes are newer homes, and they are built to the standards of two-by-six constructions and R-20 insulation. What more are we going to do with these homes, or what more can she suggest that we do with these homes?
The government is going to be put in that position to come up with these ideas, and it is a make-work project which is not uncommon for the members opposite to do that. Those are the things that they seem to come and think about. It really is amazing but I think that we have to look at things and what we can do as a government, and what I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that we should assist the people by enabling them and trying to have some awareness of what the issues really are, because I found that in my involvement with the people in the area, communication was a big factor there because they did not understand a lot of the things.
If the member were to look back, we have a tracking system at the airport right now, and that came in about 1993. I was very involved with that right from 1991 to 1993, having information nights within the area, covering the whole area over that period of time, and people coming and voicing their concerns about this, but once they understood what was going on and what could be done, they never talked about getting funding for insulation or improvement of their windows. They would be prepared to do that themselves.
I think that is really what I am talking about. Allow them to take some ownership of this. They moved there and I think that they accepted the fact that they are going to be able to have some of these things. It does not matter where you go, there is always going to be something, but they moved there. A lot of the people who live in that area, they work at the airport. They appreciate the convenience. There are a lot of nice homes, and a lot of those homes are in extremely good condition.
Now, the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), I know in terms of some of the areas that she is on the eastern part of that. I just forget the runway that it is, but there is a concern there in some of those areas because on takeoff what happens is--and I suggest that there could be something there with the deflectors, with sound deflectors, because when they have to take off over to the northwest and are flying over the unpopulated area, there is a problem that they back up and they take a run at it. When they rev up the engines, all that sound comes over these homes, and sometimes with the airplanes that are taking off during the middle of the night and things like that, I can understand how that can be a problem.
There can be deflectors put in there, and the airport says that, yes, they can do that. They could do that. They have not done it yet, but those are things that I think we should be looking at in terms of what the airport is capable of doing to create the environment that is neighbour friendly. I think that with the airplanes that are coming on track now, over the next five, 10 years, the working with the airport, these people are very cognizant of the fact that they have a problem with noise there and they have to have control of it.
So, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put these few remarks on the record, and I think that the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), although maybe her intentions are honourable, I do not think she has thought this resolution out very thoroughly, and I cannot support this.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): It is a pleasure to get up today and speak on behalf of the resolution brought forward by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). I was going to speak about the positives that are implied and explicit in her resolution and in her remarks earlier this afternoon, but I must respond to the member for Sturgeon Creek's (Mr. McAlpine) comments. When he says that perhaps the member for St. James has not thought this thing through carefully enough, I think he really means he himself has not thought these things through clearly enough.
In effect, what the member for Sturgeon Creek is saying is that these people, some of whom have lived in their houses for 30, 40 years, who continue to live in their houses, do not have the same rights that anyone in the city of Winnipeg had under the government's earlier program which allowed, if you had $5,000 to spend on home improvements, you could get $1,000 back. I fail to understand why it is okay for someone who has an expensive house in Charleswood to put $5,000 into home repairs when this member for Sturgeon Creek says that communities should be neighbour friendly by saying too bad, caveat emptor. You knew what you were getting when you bought the house, so do not come to us asking for support, do not come to us asking to maintain your home's value so that when you sell it, you get a fair price for your property, and the city and the province have access to tax money that they would not have had otherwise.
The member talks about how many of the houses in the area are new or have been renovated by their owners, and I would suggest that the member's statement, private member's resolution, does not speak to those houses. If the member for Sturgeon Creek had listened rather than having his preprogrammed responses all ready made out, he would have heard that there are 400 homes that are right on the flight paths. They are on the flight paths for an airport that is a 24-hour airport. These are homes that would be identified individually. Someone would go out from the program, if it were put in place, as happens throughout North America, identify what the problems are and what and if the home would be eligible for some ameliorating circumstances under this program, should it come into place.
That is not the same thing as saying everybody would get renovation work. Of course not. That would be ridiculous, and the member should know that. That is not what this resolution talks about at all. It talks about the fact that we as a community, through our support for a 24-hour airport that is located almost in the heart of the city, are asking residents who live there to undergo, on our economic behalf, very difficult situations where the noise level gets to be untenable.
* (1730)
I know many of us who have lived on the flight paths of airplanes, some to a greater extent and others to a lesser extent, know how uncomfortable it is every once in a while when the plane goes overhead. I remember being able to see faces in the plane as it came through this flight path over my house. It lasted maybe 10 seconds, and it was not a big deal. But, if you are right on the runways, you are not going to be able to say it is no big deal once or twice a day every once in a while when the winds are from the wrong direction. This is an ongoing thing. I think we owe it to those residents to say that we understand that this is a problem. We understand this is a problem not of your own making,because you bought your houses in many cases well before the airport became a 24-hour facility and, certainly, well before the concept of Winnport ever was thought of. We all agree with Winnport. We all think that is a great idea. We all think that the WAA is doing a marvellous job, and if it can come up with a surplus after five years of operation or as they anticipate, this is great.
We know that Winnipeg has the potential for being a hub of international activity. We look at the potential of Winnport when it gets even further along, if it should, where it has an industrial component that will mean far more planes going in and out of the airport than even thought of now, and other runways perhaps.
It is remarkable that the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) and, I am assuming, the rest of his colleagues because nothing is said by members opposite in any of these discussion times in our private members' meetings that is not vetted at the highest levels, so I am assuming that the member for Sturgeon Creek is very bluntly and clumsily laying out his government's position on this situation, which will not go over well with the residents in St. James and Sturgeon Creek and other areas in the city that have this problem.
It sounds to me like the member for Sturgeon Creek thinks that this is something that only those social democrats, New Democrats would think up; that people have to learn to live on their own, bring up themselves by their own bootstraps and only in Winnipeg or Manitoba would this happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cities like Chicago, Seattle, Kansas City, Detroit and most other large U.S. cities have a program such as this, and I can tell you from experience virtually all of those cities had their airports originally on the far outskirts of the city. O'Hare, if you live in downtown Chicago, it takes you, on a good day, 45 minutes to get to O'Hare from the older part of Chicago. That is where airports were built.
Winnipeg's airport is built right at the outskirts of the inner city. I live 10 minutes from the airport, and I live in an older part of the city in a house that was built 75 years ago. That airport was always much closer to the built-up parts of the city of Winnipeg than the airports in the United States that have programs in place. In Chicago they have a program for people, for the houses of those people who built around O'Hare knowing far more than those whose houses we are talking about in Winnipeg, that they were near an airport, that they were near a massive airport. Twenty-five, 30 years ago, 35 years ago, O'Hare, even then, was a major transportation centre for North America, and there were houses being built around at that time, even though at that point it was out further in the sticks and you could actually go through farmland before you got to it.
But those communities recognize the fact that people who live there need some assistance to have a quality of life that everyone else has the right to, and for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) to get up and say that neighbour-friendly means no support from the provincial government is quite remarkable, but not at all unusual, either for that member or the government he represents.
It is not okay for the province to say we will help you maintain your quality of life and give you a little handout so that when you try and sell your house you will have a decent return on your home investment, and we as members of the province get some benefit from that too, some financial benefit.
No. No, no, no, we are not going to provide any assistance for these individuals, small in number, comparatively speaking. This is from the same government that Workforce 2000 was a major, major accomplishment, if you can call it that, of this same government. Bob Kozminski, golf courses--
An Honourable Member: Training cashiers.
Ms. Barrett: Training cashiers. It was a slush fund for the Tory faithful.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, now that I have got your attention, let us talk about a half-billion-dollar slush fund. Let us talk about the sale of MTS. Thirty-five million dollars go to the brokers, who were also the advisers advising the government to sell MTS. A million dollars goes to the brother of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for stock options making him a millionaire. But, oh, no, we cannot put in place a program that would assist individual homeowners to have a quality of life around our airport. No, we cannot do that. That would not be prudent. But we will provide our friends with a slush fund that they can dip into, almost at will, with absolutely--that Workforce 2000, there were no accountability criteria built into that money--[interjection]
Oh, and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), the Tory--[interjection]
No kidding. The Minister of Rural Development, when he was Minister of Education had his hiring authority ripped away from him by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), because he was so slimy in his hiring practices, is now saying individuals in the St. James area around the airport do not have the right to some assistance from the province of Manitoba. And perhaps, just perhaps, if something like this does not go through, there will be problems in the future with Winnport.
Does the phrase Rotary Pines ring a bell? What has happened as a result of Rotary Pines was that the government cannot build the kind of high-rise development they wanted to. But who knows, at some point if enough people get incensed enough about a situation like this, some of the big commercial airlines will say we do not need this. If we are going to be taken to court, if we are not going to have access, we do not need this. There are already instances where, because we are a 24-hour airport, planes have come in that should not have come in, that were not cleared for their noise level. So this is already happening.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I hope that the rest of the government side will take heed of my comments and the comments of the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) and support this very positive idea. It is an idea that needs to be looked at very seriously and not just dismissed frivolously by the government opposite, who has a very bad record when it comes to supporting people in the province of Manitoba who are not in their back pockets.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): An interesting resolution, I would like to put a few comments on the record about. I will stick to the positive as opposed to stoop to the negative as the previous speaker just did.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1740)
Mr. Findlay: I do respect the member in her resolution in some of the whereases, identifying the value of the airport to the city and the province, and the value of having commercial activity there involving passenger movements and cargo movements. Currently, we have approximately two-and-a-half million passengers a year going through Winnipeg Airport. That represents about 88 percent of the traffic activity there, and 12 percent of it is recognized by cargo activity. Clearly that is a category that is going to rise in the years ahead.
As we look at the history of transportation, whether it is rail or road or airports, there is always a noise created. Clearly the member talks about Winnipeg and residents of Winnipeg being affected by noise. But railroads run through every town, and they run through the heart of the town because the town was built around the railroads. Clearly the rail activity makes a lot of noise, but you do not hear too many complaints from those people. Clearly, high-volume roads create noise. I guess there is one way to say it: when you have noise, that is good news in terms of economic activity.
But clearly the issue with the airport is a big one, and the noise it creates is going to increase with the amount of traffic that is going to go through there, and there is a challenge to how you deal with it.
Madam Speaker, that is very well recognized by all the players involved in the airport. Clearly, the Winnipeg Airport Authority, which is very successfully operating the airport, does recognize it. They monitor the airplane movements, and they schedule them to try to minimize noise. I can tell you that pilots for the airlines and the management of the landing and takeoff activities of those airplanes is also taken into account, trying to keep the noise at a minimum.
Now I relate a particular incident which drove this point home to me. Approximately two years ago I was coming back to Winnipeg on an Air Canada jet, and the pilot asked me to sit with him in the front between the two seats as we landed, which is an interesting experience. It is a nonevent really; everything runs very professionally. But as we were approaching, the pilot said to me, so you notice where we are turning, and I says, yeah, you are way out south of Winnipeg. I asked him, why are you turning out here? Well, he says, we used to turn right in tight to the airport, that was the cost-effective way to do it, but as a pilots' union, we have decided, we have said to our companies it is in our best interest as a company and as a pilots' association that we minimize noise by doing our turning activities away from the densely populated area, so that we can cruise into the airport without the turning noise activity overtop of the people.
I give them credit for that, but clearly the Airport Authority recognizes the conflict that might happen with people that does and will over the course of time. They are doing what they can within their constraints to respond to that.
But the biggest initiative that is going on that members opposite have failed to recognize--and this is the opposite way to deal with this problem, not to insulate the houses regarding noise--but the issue is reduce the noise of the airplanes that are taking off and landing.
What was originally the jet aircraft that was in use all over the world were called Chapter One aircraft: very little noise attenuation, high-noise volumes, particularly on takeoff. Currently we have such planes as Boeing 727, Boeing 737 and DC-9 jets, which some of you may think as older jets. They fall into what is called Chapter Two, less noise than Chapter One. Currently, we also have what is called Chapter Three, the modern jets, the A-320s and the A-319s, very quiet aircraft. They are called Chapter Three, which are manufactured with noise bypass to have much less level of noise. They are the predominant aircraft of the future.
Through Transport Canada we have regulations in place which are agreed to by the International Civil Aviation Organization that, currently, we have 50 percent of our jet aircraft in the Chapter Three category, which is the low-noise category, and 75 percent of the aircraft will be in that category by December 31 of 1999. It is a requirement agreed to by all players in the industry. By April 1 of 2002, 100 percent of the aircraft in use at our Canadian airports will be in the Chapter Three category. Now, that means new aircraft being manufactured with the hush kits or the noise attenuators, and the old aircraft being retrofitted with the hush kits or noise attenuators as they are called. For a 737, I am told, it is about $1 million to put the noise attenuators on, and that is responsible activity on behalf of the aircraft industry to minimize the noise of the aircraft coming to and from the airport, so that we can respect citizens underneath the airplanes to not have to be subjected to the level of noise that might have been the case in the past.
Clearly, the airport is of incredible importance and the members opposite talk about the airport being close to downtown. That is good for easy access, quick access. It makes it very important also that we maintain that strip west and northwest of the airport without houses out there so the airport has the ability to expand in the future. Clearly, we have a fair bit of air cargo movement, small cargo movement right now with Federal Express and Purolator, a lot of overnight traffic that is coming to and from the airport. In 1997, the average number of aircraft movements at the airport were 38 per night, and the night is from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Thirty-nine aircraft coming or going basically is 19 coming and 20 going sort of thing to make your 39.
But, Madam Speaker, I think the aircraft industry and the airport operators right across this country appreciate the noise problem. We as a government promote very strongly the increased economic activity, increased movement of goods, because that does drive our economy. At the same time, whether it is the federal government or the provincial government of Manitoba or the City of Winnipeg, we are all attempting in our various ways and means to be sure that the noise levels that were the case 20 years ago are not the case as close as the year 2002. Information I am given is that moving from Chapter One, the old aircraft, to Chapter Three reduces the noise level by 20 decibels, which is a pretty significant reduction in noise level, and I certainly commend all the players involved in achieving that reduction by the noise attenuators built into today's aircraft and to be put on the existing aircraft that are currently in operation.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to comment on this because there is no way in the world that we as a government or I think any member in this House wants to see the airport restricted in its ability to expand and operate. Other communities, cities that do not have a 24-hour airport do not have the opportunity for the overnight cargo activity that we have here in Winnipeg, and it is important that we continue to maintain happening in Winnipeg. Winnport would have never happened here without a 24-hour airport, so it is important as we develop our guidelines federally, provincially and as a city that we respect that and work hard to keep the airport open. I hope that the citizens under the flight path respect those activities also, that there are ways and means to reduce noise with the Chapter Three activities that currently are underway.
I would not preclude a further noise reduction capability of aircraft in the future as new technology comes along, but between that technology that is used in the airports plus the management of the arrivals and departures from the airports, there are ways and means to reduce noise to make the standard of living of people around the airports much, much better. As I have mentioned earlier, I mean, we have all lived or have been in communities across wherever in North America where a train is tooting through in the middle of the night, blowing the horn. It does get your attention, and it probably affects your quality of life if you are not used to it.
Winnipeg has had the fortunate ability to have an airport that has developed and will continue to develop, and I think the management at the airport is very astute in terms of respecting the citizens around it and want to live in harmony, and that is why they have in place committees to allow input, to allow discussion, and I hope the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) will appreciate that probably the better way to approach this issue is not to spend money on the homes but to require the companies that fly the planes to put the noise attenuation on. It does not cost the taxpayers money directly to do that, and it improves the quality of life for those people in the flight path of that aircraft.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this.
* (1750)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am pleased to rise to place a few comments on the record regarding this resolution.
I was pleasantly surprised with the comments from the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) about the value of the Home Renovation Program we had in place a few years back when I was Minister of Housing. Although at the time the member and her colleagues were highly critical of the program, I am pleased to see that in retrospect she feels that that was in fact a good program that provided the opportunity for hundreds of families around this province to renovate their homes and to upgrade them with the very kinds of upgrading the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) is advocating in her resolution.
The vast majority of houses that took advantage of that program were in fact the smaller, more modest homes and the families with lower incomes, and the statistics are there to show that. Perhaps the member for Wellington has not had a chance to read them to see that because she indicated in her remarks today that she felt that program was only for rich people in Charleswood when, Madam Speaker, the statistics show very definitely that they were very much taken advantage of by people who might otherwise not have been able to do those kinds of renovations.
That program was extended at great objection from the opposition. It was extended another year because of its popularity, because of the requests for it to be expanded at the time. We were pleased to do that in order to enable those citizens who had not taken advantage of it in the first year to take advantage of it in the second year. As I recall at the time, one of the reasons we extended it was because people, as the year went on, the first year, were only beginning to discover it.
We had then put in place some advertising to let people know the program was available. Again, that was severely criticized by the member for Wellington and her colleagues opposite, that we should not be advertising this because I think they were concerned, that they thought we were advertising it to make ourselves look good, even though what we were doing was putting out information through the department so people could take advantage of the program as they subsequently did then. The minute we began to advertise, more people did take up on the program to accomplish the very goals that the opposition now in their resolution say they want to see happen.
So I am pleased with her about-face, but I say she has come a little too late to the table to propose doing what we have already done, Madam Speaker. But I do accept her belated support for that program we had in place when I was Minister of Housing. I felt at the time it was a good program and was pleased to go and tour many of the houses that did take advantage of it, and many of them, in fact the majority, were of lower-income, modest homes.
So I address the point that was raised by the member for Wellington, and she spent some time on it. She spent a fair bit of time on it, not as much as I have spent responding to it, but, Madam Speaker, I also want to indicate that, of course, being a child of a search and rescue officer with the Royal Canadian Air Force, I spent all my life living at the end of a runway, and I can testify to the fact that many people who live at the end of a runway do not see noise as a problem, having been one of those people.
Also, Madam Speaker, for many, many years my husband and I lived on Collegiate Street in St. James when our children were young, and Collegiate Street, of course, is right next to Ferry Road. We were in a flight path, and the planes did not pose any problems for ourselves or our neighbours because we knew when we bought our homes, of course, that we were buying near the airport. In fact, we got a good price on our home because we were buying near the airport, and so did many of our neighbours.
So, Madam Speaker, when you go to look for a home location, people such as my husband and I who really had no problem with the airport noise bought a home on Collegiate Street knowing that we would experience that noise and knowing that because of it we would pay less for our home which we felt really was an advantage, and I think if the member takes a look at the statistics which is always a good thing to do before you put forward resolutions, she will see--the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) spent a lot of time talking about Chicago and trying to draw a parallels and comparisons between Winnipeg and Chicago. You could do the same with Toronto. Take a look at the number of noise complaints in those cities versus the number of noise complaints in Winnipeg, and you will see a huge discrepancy in the number of complaints that take place.
The airport was there before the houses were built. The number of complaints versus noise are not nearly enough to warrant any concern whatsoever about interrupting the 24-hour availability of the airport. In fact, even when there was the controversy over the Rotary Pines project, we had done some research at that point because we supported the Rotary Club and we supported increased seniors housing in St. James. The research that we did at that time showed that in that square mile between where the Pines would have been located and the airport, there were--I forget the exact number now, but it was many, many hundreds of homes, 458 apartments just between Whytewold and Moray, and of those there had never been a single complaint about noise. There were no vacancies in the apartments, there were waiting lists to get in.
If you take a look at who lives in the area, in that particular area which is the one I have done some quite intensive research on, you find a lot of people who work at the airport. The Pines was never built, but if you take a look at the people who had signed up for the Pines and see where they now live, they got on waiting lists for the other apartments on that strip of Portage Avenue, and most of them have been able to successfully locate in that area which is where they wanted to live. You will find retired air force people, retired aircrew people, retired land crew people, retired air traffic controllers, people who have spent their lives, their careers, working in and around the airport.
In the apartment building where my father lives, many of those, there are several ex-pilots living in his building. They actually sit on their balcony with the binoculars watching the planes come in and enjoy it very much, because it was so much a part of their life.
The new technologies in aircraft do mean quieter planes coming onstream. The routing paths that the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) talked about do mean that the airlines themselves are conscious of reducing noise. I feel that given that we have had the kind of home renovation program the member mentions, ironically which they vigorously fought, that we have already done what the member has proposed. I ask: where were they when we could have used their support for something like this? The plain fact is they were not here. They were opposed to home renovation and could have addressed the very problem she is putting forward. So I appreciate the abrupt about-face. I do not know why the abrupt about-face came about, but I do appreciate it, but I submit that we have already done that which she asked.
I also indicate, Madam Speaker, that those people purchasing homes in the area know in advance that they are purchasing homes on the flight path and do get a preferred rate on their homes because of it. Living as we did for all those years on Collegiate Street, I cannot ever remember a topic of conversation being that we needed help because of airplane noise. In all the years we lived there, I do not remember one conversation. Now, I do not know where the member lives, but I warrant that she probably has not lived at or near Ferry Road, and I have. We still have many friends who live in that area. They have never raised a concern about noise to me. I think she should do some looking at the statistics--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) will have six minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).