Transport Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know how many airlines in your group will be concerned by the measures. As Mr. Laframboise has just pointed out, Air Canada is probably not one of them, judging by the type of planes it operates. Obviously WestJet is concerned. How many other members of your organization are concerned and how many airplanes does that represent in all?

[Andy Vasarins]

Actually, every airline will have the option to harmonize or not with the one to fifty. That includes Air Canada. We are not really saying that Air Canada won't.

Let me give you an example. In Germany, Lufthansa operates many types, including Boeing 707s, 727s, 737s, and 747s, McDonnell Douglas DC-10s, and Airbus A300s, A310s and A320s. Under similar regulatory requirements, they chose to standardize their fleet equipment so that they fall within those three types and therefore went through the one-to-fifty standard. They are doing very well and are more profitable.

Every airline company in Canada will have the option to harmonize. It will be strictly up to them, based on their load factors, the type of aircraft, and whether they can combine the types to make that decision.

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

I will rephrase my question. How many members of your organization expressed interest in the change?

[Fred Gaspar]

We haven't pursued this regulation from that perspective. We pursued it from the sense of best practices, in terms of international and aviation innovation. So we don't know which of our members are or aren't going to take advantage of it. We do know that as a group, they do favour this move.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I would like to thank our guests. We do have another group of people coming forward.

Thank you for your presentation.

I would now call on the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

We're actually pretty much on schedule.

Joining us, we have Pamela Sachs, president of the Air Canada component, and Richard Balnis, a senior researcher.

We welcome you, and please make yourself comfortable. Whenever you're ready to proceed, I would ask you to start.

[Pamela Sachs, President, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Pamela Sachs, and I'm also the chairperson of the council of component presidents of the airline division of CUPE. I'm also a flight attendant. I was a qualified flight attendant for 26 years before I assumed my union role, and I have been in this union role for nine years.

Appearing with me today is Richard Balnis, a CUPE research officer. We'd like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and for your interest in this very important safety issue.

We represent flight attendants throughout the Canadian airline industry. Flight attendants are the first line of defence when things go wrong, and since 9/11 we've been able to depend less and less on the flight deck crews. We deal with onboard fires, cabin decompressions, unruly passengers, security breaches—remember the shoe bomber?--medical emergencies, and conducting aircraft evacuations in the event of a crash.

Aircraft mechanical problems occur once every five hours every day; smoke in the cabin or cockpit occurs once every four days; and there's a serious medical emergency once a week. We deal with the serious incidents as well, and you'll remember Fredericton and the near tragedy in the Azores.

I'd like to turn the technical part of the briefing over to Richard.

Thank you.

[Richard Balnis, Senior Researcher, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Each member of the committee has been given a PowerPoint presentation in English and French, some poll results in English and French, and a blue book that I'll be referring to, which is completely bilingual under the tabs. I'd like to walk you through the PowerPoint presentation, because I think we'll be able to answer many of the issues raised by Transport Canada, and by ATAC, and hopefully answer some of the questions you have.

One of the things is on page 11 of the slide show. We met with the minister on June 6 with Mr. Grégoire. It was the first time we heard that there is now a company-wide election for this rule, so something has changed that we weren't even aware of. But let's be clear on what the proposal is. I would draw your attention to slide 3. Mr. Grégoire described it on his slide, but it will be unique in the world. You will have a choice between three rules: the current one-to-forty passengers, with some long overdue improvements; a one-to-fifty seats rule for wide-body aircraft, above the U.S. rule; and a one-to-fifty seats rule for narrow-body aircraft, which we believe will be effectively the same as the U.S. rule. Airlines will be able to pick and choose as they see fit. The last time we saw this rule go forward, it was by aircraft type, so we're surprised that there has been a change.

If you go to slide 4, you will see what is referred to as Frances Wokes' comment. Mr. Grégoire told you today that Transport Canada rejected the one-to-fifty seats rule in 2000 because of safety concerns, but to date we've not been able to get the document because it has been withheld at the direction of the deputy minister. As you can see on slide 5, it was rejected in 2001 because it did not maintain an equivalent level of safety, which Mr. Grégoire says it does today. We would like to discuss that very seriously. He also insists that the 2001 proposal is different. Today we have a different proposal.

I would like to draw your attention to slide 6. Some of you may have been able to see these documents that Frances Wokes prepared. What we have in the yellow tab in the blue book is a summary of what MPs from this committee have told us were in those documents. Those documents contained a three-column matrix. The third one is blanked because of access to information, even though the same analysis in 2005 was released in its entirety. They never showed us the document, but members of the old SCOT described it to us and said that the documents were a smoking gun, and they saw no reason why those documents could not be released.

We believe we cannot have a regulatory process that is fair when all the available facts are not on the table. As you can see on slide 7, we met with the minister on June 6, and we asked him to release the documents. We may need your help to get those documents released.

I would draw your attention to slide 8. We have had mention repeatedly of this risk assessment that Transport Canada conducted in 2003. There is the scoring of the five rules they looked at. The current rules scored 404; the U.S. rules scored 256. To answer, I think, Mr. Laframboise's question, the risk assessment did not score the new proposal.

Moving to slide 9, there's a lot of talk of one-to-fifty being the gold standard. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has always been critical of that move, and in fact Transport Canada's own risk assessment concluded that the one-to-fifty rule had to be improved for wide bodies by putting in the floor-level coverage, which is unique in the world.

Going to slide 10, we have already had reference to the TWA crash. The evidence shows flight attendants save lives. Mr. Gaspar and Mr. Grégoire talk about the lack of flight attendants being the cause of deaths of people. Here we have a crew in excess of legal minimums, that saved lives. We believe that properly conducted accident investigations demonstrate the weakness of bad rules.

Slide 11 shows us the commitment of the Conservative Party during the election. Many of you are recipients of e-mails from our members. These are the responses back from the Conservative Party. They don't believe there would be a bad impact. We heard from Mr. Grégoire today that there would not be a bad impact. We have all the numbers of different ratios.

We would now draw your attention to slide 12. We want to have you look at full loads. Monsieur Grégoire said the one-to-fifty was deficient, particularly as it relates to wide-body aircraft, and that Canada has done better. Transport Canada is going to require one flight attendant per floor-level exit.

The diagram in slide 12 represents the typical configuration of an Air Canada A340-300. It is the same type of aircraft that crashed at Pearson last summer, just a few seats smaller. There are eight floor-level exits on this aircraft. They are circled in the diagram there. Under the U.S. and European rules, only six flight attendants would be required, leaving two of the exits uncovered, which are marked in red. That is the rule that ATAC sought in October 2002 when they filed their petition. This is the debate. They wanted a crew of six, leaving two floor-level exits uncovered.

I would like to move to slide 13, to the same plane, the A340. As a result of the Transport Canada risk assessment, when this plane is full, eight flight attendants will be required under the current Canadian one-to-forty rule, covering all floor-level exits. Transport Canada has agreed that under their version of the one-to-forty rule, they would ensure full coverage for these wide-body aircraft. This is more than the so-called international standard because the risk assessment found that the international standard was deficient. It ensures that one-to-forty and one-to-fifty Canadian...are the same. This is a good thing, a safe thing.

Now let's look at the impact on narrow-bodied aircraft like the A320, which is shown in slide 14. I would like to clear up the confusion. There are two floor-level exits at the rear of the aircraft, two floor-level exits at the front, and the two little dots there are overwing type III exits not to be run by a flight attendant. They are passenger self-help exits. So when somebody says there are six or eight exits on an aircraft, we're talking about floor-level exits. There are four floor-level exits on an A320.

Mr. Grégoire said that TC would never reduce safety. Well, under the current one-to-forty rule, this plane requires a crew of four flight attendants at full passenger loads, at 121 and 140 seats. There you can see there are four flight attendants. There will be complete floor-level coverage. Carriers will have the option to flip to the one-to-fifty rule, the same standard Transport Canada rejected in 2001, and you will be able to operate this same aircraft with only three flight attendants. This is a 120-foot cabin; there is no margin for error at these crew levels. If a flight attendant is injured or unable to help, there will only be two flight attendants to evacuate that full aircraft.

I will move to the next slide. This is not just affecting Air Canada; it also affects WestJet and other aircraft.

We've heard a lot about these mitigation factors. There are 14 such mitigating or compensating factors; 12 of the 14 will apply to both the one-to-forty and the one-to-fifty rules. So what mitigation is there to move from the lower one-to-fifty to the higher one-to-forty when they both have the same enhancements? The limitation of aircraft types.... In our view, WestJet, for example, will not be subject to the limitations because they only have three aircraft types. Air Canada has many more aircraft types, but Transport Canada has watered down the definition so much that we think Air Canada will be able to get under the rule of five. It's not three; it's also five.

The only mitigating factor we see is new in-charge training. The cabin personnel who are in charge of the aircraft will have new training. They should have had new training required by law. It may be as little as one-half a day. Such extra training for one person on a reduced crew will not compensate for one less body on these aircraft. We would suggest that moving to a one-to-fifty rule will cut the crews on narrow-bodied aircraft overnight, without any mitigating factors whatsoever.

That is why Frances Wokes' report is so important. She found out the problems with that rule in 2001. In our view, it is indeed a smoking gun.

There were some questions.

In the blue book is the staff report that Monsieur Grégoire carefully avoided answering on. I listened very carefully to his answer, but he never answered it.

You will see the staff recommendation where they expressed concern. This is not scaremongering. These are not the foes of modernization that ATAC would lead you to believe. This is from a Transport Canada staffer, Christopher Dann, who was sitting here during the presentation but unfortunately had to leave.

They talked about the sensitivity of this issue and the risk of lowering public confidence in aviation safety. They went on to say that we needed to do eight more things, seven of which, to our knowledge, have not been done.

We have finally seen the aircraft analysis tied to this slide show, an analysis we have been asking for since April 2004. It has appeared today, and only because this standing committee made Transport Canada come.

In addition, you will see the Australian quote “after a security incident”. After a passenger attacked flight attendants with pointed sticks, Australia realized they should not lower their ratio of 1:36, and we believe for good reason.

Will passengers benefit? Will there be lower fares, better service, and free blankets and pillows? We don't think so.

You have the complete poll results as well, and 69% of Canadians want to maintain the current 1:40 ratio. More importantly, 50% strongly oppose the change, even if it is to maintain corporate international competitiveness.

In summary, Transport Canada's culture of secrecy is inconsistent with the government's commitment to open and transparent government. Transport Canada officials are asking you to deliberately increase risks to passengers for no tangible public return, and even their own staff believe more homework must be done.

I'll say a word on consultation. We had two one-half days in 2003 to discuss risk assessment in separate rooms. The unions were in one room, the employers met separately, and there were public interest groups. We had two one-half days of that. In April 2004 we had two days when we were all brought together. There have been three days of consultation on this regulation. The rest of the time, any delay has been due to the department.

Finally, we ask you as parliamentarians to take action to put this initiative on hold. We need all the work done that was identified in the November 2004 staff report. We need the full Wokes' analysis. We need to return to the department, because, quite frankly, it's now on a fleet-wide basis, and that's news to us. We need to know what is being planned.

In conclusion, we need to ensure that you have done your job. In 1981 the U.S. House of Representatives had public hearings when the U.S. government considered moving to a 1:50 passenger ratio. After considering it, they rejected it.

Finally, with the greatest of respect to Mr. Grégoire, if you want to be data-driven, you learn from accidents. Wait for the investigation report of Air France Flight 358.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

We know that we ran too long, but I think we've anticipated a lot of the questions and we've tried to put the full debate before the committee on all these issues.

We're open to your questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

My first question would actually be to you. How is the order of appearances determined at a committee meeting such as this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It was a meeting of the subcommittee where we agreed to invite certain witnesses before us at this particular meeting.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Who determined who appeared first and last?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We didn't. We selected the groups that we thought should be here. There was certainly no influence on my part or, I don't think, on any member's part as to the order. Is there a problem with it?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm not suggesting there is. I'm only suggesting that in a matter such as this, I would really have appreciated it if Mr. Balnis and Ms. Sachs had appeared first. They've given us a great deal of ammunition to lob at ATAC and the department. I'm a little disappointed.

As a true Conservative, no doubt you would appreciate this. A true Conservative believes that the onus of truth is often on those proposing change, and the ones proposing change got out before CUPE's presentation.

Mr. Balnis—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think I should correct that. I don't think you should cast those types of aspersions. We had a subcommittee meeting.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, I'm not suggesting at all. I totally accept your view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Please continue. Your time is running.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You said the House of Representatives rejected this proposal.

[Richard Balnis]

The U.S. representatives conducted hearings in the move from one flight attendant per 50 seats to one flight attendant per 50 passengers.

To be clear on the origin of the rule, the rule originated in 1971. Australia had one flight attendant per 36 passengers. The U.S. at that time had one flight attendant per 44 seats. Canada took the middle: one flight attendant per 40 passengers. Then the U.S. moved from one flight attendant per 44 seats to one flight attendant per 50 seats. The U.S. NTSB said it is unproven.

The airlines then said they'd like to go to one flight attendant per 50 passengers, to give them the flexibility and even fewer flight attendants, because they would be able, then, to staff to load as well.

The U.S. House of Representatives stepped in, convened a full day of televised public hearings, and rejected it based on the evidence presented.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So it never went ahead.

[Richard Balnis]

It did not go ahead, but that's one flight attendant per 50 passengers, not one per 50 seats.

You get really confused. You just have to keep them clear in your head. One is passengers; the other is seats.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But you seem to be making some sort of parallel between the way the U.S. has handled the change and the way we're handling it. I was suggesting that somehow they were more rigorous, but you say it's apples and oranges.

[Richard Balnis]

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that when it comes to an important issue of public safety, the U.S. House of Representatives held public hearings, because we have been criticized for upsetting the regulatory process, for bringing the standing committee into a place it does not belong.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I see. Okay.