Evidence of meeting #34 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was airports.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
We've done it in committee before that we have moved a motion—
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal David McGuinty
To cut to the chase, Mr. Mai, I take it that consent is not granted here. There is not unanimous consent to allow you to do so.
If you want to move your motion now, you'll move your motion now, and we'll enter into a discussion, or you can withdraw the motion with the consent of the committee, or you can move right now to discuss and present your motion, or we can go on good faith and say that we'll allocate a certain amount of time at the end of this meeting, 10 minutes, so that we have the consent of everyone that you will move the motion and we will have our discussion and move on from there.
Are we agreed?
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal David McGuinty
We're agreed.
(Motion withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Continuing on....
10 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
On the issue of Transport Canada and SMS, that doesn't touch the security screening at all. I'm coming back—
10 a.m.
President, Canadian Airports Council
I don't want to get this wrong technically, so I'm going to defer to Gordon Duke.
10 a.m.
Director of Operations, Halifax International Airport Authority, Canadian Airports Council
With SMS the focus is on aviation and airside safety. Security is a separate apparatus from that.
June 17th, 2014 / 10 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Nourse talked earlier about the issue of passengers bringing things that they shouldn't onto aircraft, which would be a connection between the airport authority and security at that point. How does that work? We're talking about the transportation of dangerous goods now. He was suggesting that there be a different set of regulations regarding the transportation of dangerous goods for passengers, so that it's easier and they don't have to cheat to get through the system.
In southern Canada airports, there is quite rigorous security screening. In northern Canada airports, perhaps less so.
How does that work with the entire safety management system? How would we implement a system that we can say works for Canadians in terms of keeping passengers safe and keeping airplanes safe, but at the same time keeping the connection between the airport authorities and the security services working properly?
10:05 a.m.
Director of Operations, Halifax International Airport Authority, Canadian Airports Council
The safe—
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
I'm sorry, but just to confirm, for the witness on the video conference, could you mention your name?
10:05 a.m.
Director of Operations, Halifax International Airport Authority, Canadian Airports Council
My apologies. It's Gord Duke in Halifax.
SMS would kick in after, in the event that an item got through that was not permitted. What Mr. Nourse is talking about is that there wouldn't be the level of response in a northern airport. The connection would not be there. They just don't have the resources in the northern airports.
10:05 a.m.
Executive Director, Northern Air Transport Association
To be very clear, the airports don't have the dangerous goods responsibility. What goes on the aircraft is the carrier's responsibility.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
Thank you, Mr. Nourse.
I'm sorry, Mr. Sullivan, but the time is up. You're way past the time.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
10:05 a.m.
Director of Operations, Halifax International Airport Authority, Canadian Airports Council
The responsibility for the transport of dangerous goods is the airlines'.
Typically the airport employees do not transport any dangerous goods or handle them during the transportation phase. Our emergency responders would need to be aware of what was on board an aircraft that may have been involved from a dangerous goods standpoint so they understand what they're going into, but that would be about it.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nourse, I would like to go back to the insightful comments you made with respect to the 1:40 versus 1:50 flight attendant ratio.
As I understand it now, if you're flying one of the major 705 carriers, and you want, for example, to sit in an emergency exit, you get the privilege of paying an additional sum of money so you can be of service to the airline should there be a problem. We've all been on different flights. Sometimes you get a thorough briefing; sometimes you get a cursory briefing; sometimes you get no briefing. I don't know how that all shakes down in terms of consistency.
What are Canadians to make of this? We're told it's an ICAO standard. I'm sure your member companies will abide by whatever the standard might be. On the other hand, Canada has filed dozens of exceptions, I think is the right word, to ICAO standards.
What are Canadians to make of this move, this pressure for moving from 1:40 to 1:50 flight attendant ratio? Keep in mind that we've asked the major 705 carriers to give us the financial implications of this move. This committee has not yet received from those witnesses, those companies, the pecuniary consequences and how much cheaper it's going to be. Will there be savings or no savings?
Keeping that in mind yourself in terms of your 107 member companies, can you address that?
10:05 a.m.
Executive Director, Northern Air Transport Association
I don't think the marketing of the exit row, primarily due to the fact that it typically has a little more leg room, can be muddled into the safety aspect of it. I'm very chagrined to hear you say that some of the briefings you get there aren't adequate.
When I talk to northern carriers in particular, the interesting thing is that although some of the carriers have applied to take advantage of the 1:50 ratio, most of the time that's done to have the flexibility if there is an issue or a particular problem on a day. As a matter of fact, I would say in almost all circumstances with northern carriers, they actually have excess cabin crew due to service requirements. Most of the northern carriers actually provide service. We provide hot meals, cooking services, and lots of drink services. We actually have more flight attendants than the 1:40 rule requires for service issues. However, that doesn't mean that when something untoward happens, it would not be beneficial to be able to use the 1:50 ratio to get you out of a circumstance.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
What is the position of your organization and your member companies on this?
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Northern Air Transport Association
We support the 1:50 ratio. We feel that if the exit arrangements on the aircraft can be properly covered with the 1:50 ratio, then there's no degradation to safety and there's no reason we should not be harmonized with both ICAO and the U.S. FAA in this matter.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Have your members ever considered the possibility of the travelling public sitting in emergency exits to be properly trained to do so or to get briefings in advance of boarding the flight, and/or instead of charging a surplus, actually providing a discount to those people who are prepared to be of assistance and are physically able to do so?
