Thank you very, Mr. Chairman.
If I was worried before the presentation, I'm even more worried now after the presentation.
According to your own figures, Mr. Grégoire, what you're saying is that for a WestJet B737-700 with four exits, you'd be looking at three flight attendants. So for the fourth exit, for a stroke victim or a person in a wheelchair, they're basically going to have to figure their own way out. By your own figures, what you're saying is that there's an exit uncovered.
We know that flight attendants play an important role in evacuation procedures, so you're in the process of telling us, even though it's buried in the back pages of your report, that for dozens of aircraft flying in Canadian skies, if there is an evacuation, there will be exits uncovered in those cases. I find that appalling. The figures are right there. This is what you've provided to us: 44 aircraft, B737-700s, with four exits but three flight attendants.
You mentioned risk assessment. You mentioned a whole variety of groups that I know are opposed to this plan and yet you mention them. So I would like you to table that risk assessment that was done with the stakeholders, including disability groups from across the country and including flight attendants, because we need to know what they actually said. You're actually trying to use the names of those organizations to suggest that in some way they approve this change, and they don't.
My comments are more specific to what's happening internationally. We know Australia has just done a review, and Australia chose to maintain the same flight ratio. In fact, Australia sees a competitive advantage in having a safer airline industry. I think that's the public policy issue here: having a safer airline industry. That provides a competitive advantage, not a cup of coffee per passenger for a flight, which is what WestJet would save by leaving exits uncovered.
So Australia has chosen to maintain the same flight ratio. Why is that?
As to other evidence internationally, in the U.S., in the inquiry into the accident involving TWA flight 843, the National Transportation Safety Board said the evacuation of the airplane occurred within two minutes, and the speed in evacuating 292 passengers and crew from the airplane was complemented by TWA's requirement for nine flight attendants, which is actually higher than the FAA minimum.
So how many other airlines around the world with better safety records actually choose to maintain stronger standards?
Then I come back to the question I asked a few weeks ago--since you're back here. In the Air France accident, we know the flight attendants played a crucial role in ensuring that all those passengers got off safely. You mentioned that the government had no intention of waiting for the results of that TSB investigation--which is beyond me. You have an investigation that is tied clearly to flight attendant ratio. So I need to ask, is that Transport Canada's normal procedure, to ignore the results of a TSB safety audit, a safety report, in an incident that has a very clear link to where the government intends to go?