Transport Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand that.

The recommendation that is coming from Transport Canada is based on that risk assessment. It's presumably based, at least in part, on the CARAC study. It's based on the fact that virtually all of the other major airlines in the world use the 1:50 rule.

Going back to the poll itself and the methodology used, I'll refer you to page 3, first of all. The question, presumably, that was addressed to the survey participants was whether they were in favour of maintaining Canada's current regulation for flight attendant requirements or matching regulations with the U.S.

Why just the U.S.? If 99% of the world's major airlines are using the 1:50 rule, why do we focus on the U.S.? Given the fact that Canadians have a much more cautious approach than our American neighbours--for a number of different reasons--than we did 30 years ago, it seems to me that referring to the U.S. in this question would tend to skew the results in favour of the answer you wanted to receive.

Before you answer the question, just to buttress that point, I'll go to page 6, which does the same thing. Again, I believe it's incorrect methodology at play here. The question is, “Should Canadian airlines lower their safety standards to stay internationally competitive?” In fact, the evidence from TC is that safety standards aren't being lowered. So if you use the words “lowering safety standards”, obviously you're going to get a response that's negative from Canadians. In fact, I'm surprised it's not 100%.

It's how you ask the questions. Clearly, I would feel uncomfortable using this as the basis for my decision, and for the decision that the minister is going to make on this issue.

I'll leave it up to a response from you, but I'm really concerned when we use a poll like this, which isn't a study. None of these survey participants, presumably, were asked questions such as, “Are you aware that the large majority of airlines in the world are using 1:50?” They probably weren't provided with copies of the risk assessments. They probably weren't provided with the TC briefing.

So that's my struggle in trying to put any weight on this document.

[Richard Balnis]

To respond to why it was compared to the U.S., WestJet repeatedly made the argument that they needed to be competitive with the U.S. because they were entering the transborder market. That was their argument. That was their direct competitor, and that's why we used the U.S.

In terms of Canadians perhaps feeling more antipathy towards Americans versus Europeans, we did not think that would have skewed the results.

In terms of your other comments, I'll use a TC line: noted.

You raise the issues. We are arguing, sir, on that picture up there. The A320 will go from four flight attendants at a full load, covering every exit, to only three. In our view, that is lowering a safety standard, regardless of what TC says.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Can you show me an independent study, perhaps an academic study, that actually shows that the 1:50 rule is going to reduce safety in our Canadian airlines?

[Richard Balnis]

I'll give you two answers to that. There is a study, but it's actually been discredited.

Do you believe smoking causes cancer?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm not going to get into a debate on smoking.

[Richard Balnis]

There is no scientific study, in the pure, gold standard sense, that proves smoking causes cancer. But I think we believe that. There's a lot of evidence there.

And the practitioners on those aircraft, from their own experience, sir, believe there will be a reduction in safety when you go from four to three flight attendants on a full load. It's the people on the front line who are saying that to you.

That is the response we would like to give you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Due to time constraints, I would thank our guests again for the information presented to us. We appreciate you taking the time.

Just for the committee's information, as of now we will be meeting on Thursday; a location will be determined. And you'll be notified of Mr. Julian's notice of motion as quickly as we get the translations in, and out to you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm curious, and I never got an opportunity to ask a question of the witnesses. How many Canadians were sampled in that poll? I would like to know because it wasn't indicated anywhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Could you perhaps ask Mr. Balnis later?

[Richard Balnis]

I believe it's on the first page past the cover page in the poll that was given to you in English and French. The unweighted number of interviews was 1,011. The weighted number of interviews was 1,000, and it's broken down by territory and later in gender. It's on page 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask the committee, since I presume this will continue to be the issue for the committee to deal with. Is there any interest in bringing any other witnesses forward?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, Transport Canada cited that they had consulted a number of disability groups. I know that I forwarded a number of those groups to the clerk to appear as witnesses. Since Transport Canada raised the fact that they had been consulted, I believe it would be very appropriate that we actually hear from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My only suggestion is what Mr. Scarpaleggia said.

Sorry, I apologize for butchering your name.

I would like to hear from Transport Canada in relation to what they've said. I think we should forward their comments from this committee meeting to Transport Canada and ask them to respond to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Perhaps we should invite the Air Canada Pilots Association to the committee. After all, they're the ones who are flying the aircraft and they have first hand knowledge of what goes on inside.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Maybe Transport Canada, if the committee wishes, could come at the very last. I think that would be appropriate. That way they could respond, because it's they who are putting this forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So Thursday we will deal with perhaps one of the organizations that were listed as being consulted.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Three were mentioned by Transport Canada: the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I'm asking, Mr. Julian, is would one of those three organizations be okay?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, all three of them were cited, so I think we should hear from all three of them. If Transport Canada is saying they have consulted with these groups and is using that as a justification for moving forward with this, I would like to hear from the groups.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities is for those with physical disabilities, those people who are in wheelchairs; the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association deals with those who are hard of hearing or late-deafened, so those are folks who would not be able to hear voice commands in the event of evacuation; and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is for blind and visually impaired Canadians. All three of them have been cited by Transport Canada as having been consulted. I think it's important that we hear from all three groups.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What about the other groups--the Air Line Pilots Association, the Teamsters? They're all there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The reason I asked about having just one of those three at this Thursday meeting was the idea of time allowance in the committee and also availability. If I can't get all three for the Thursday meeting, do I not take any? That's what I'm asking.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

My suggestion, Mr. Chair, would be to have all three. I think they would be available. If they can't attend, of course, that would be unfortunate, but let's have as many as possible.

I can't stress this enough: these are three different levels of disability. In a sense, they are three different groups. We often--and this comes from my disability background--regroup people with disabilities as though they're all the same. Well, there are fundamental differences between how a person in a wheelchair might evacuate an aircraft and how a person who is deaf or blind might do so.