Transport Committee on May 2nd, 2007

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

Thank you for that. It's very clear that you're talking about a cumulative 10% cut at least, and the document released this week also talks about a larger cutback through attrition. So this is a matter of legitimate public concern.

I'd like to come to the issue of reprisals. We had the Canadian Federal Pilots Association raising concerns about coming and testifying. Ms. Brazier and Mr. Whalen, you mentioned in your testimony concern about reprisals.

I'll start with Mr. Balnis, but I'd like to ask each one of you: are you concerned about reprisals? Have there in the past, when CUPE has appeared before this committee, been any repercussions from doing that on other issues, or concern about testifying on this issue?

[Richard Balnis]

On June 20 we appeared before this committee on the number of flight attendants on board aircraft, the so-called “1 in 50” issue. Three weeks later we were sent a letter by Transport Canada indicating that our conduct was unprofessional and that we would have limited access to Transport Canada officials going forward. We raised this letter with the minister, and that ban was shortly thereafter withdrawn, in November. We expect a similarly frosty reception from Transport Canada for appearing today. We did not bring an elected officer with us who works for an airline because we suspect there will be reprisals at the airlines against our elected people who work there because of the testimony we've put forward.

We were actually thinking of blanking out the names of the airlines in our brief to protect our people, but we felt, as Mr. Rubin would say, that this would sort of defeat the purpose of coming in with “blank”. So we've named Air Canada, we've named Transat, we've named actually Calm Air, and we will defend our members there if necessary by all the means we have. We have in the past and we will continue to do so.

In one particular case involving one very vocal critic of SMS at one of the airlines, we had to go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to preserve her job. Her job is preserved, but she is not here today for that reason, because we don't need any more targeting of our people over this issue.

When you move from the theory, when you move from the castle in the air to the pointy end of the production, which Dax Air and a lot of other people talk about, that's where you have to have people come forward.

And just to raise this aspect, I have gotten many e-mails and brown envelopes from inspectors raising issues and urging me to raise those issues, but they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they come forward. Is this a non-punitive culture, when people can't raise these issues and have them discussed? I think we're far from that.

I look forward to answering further questions on this issue, if there's a need, but I'd like my co-panellists here to also give their views.

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

Ms. Brazier, you mentioned fear of reprisals, and it's quite shocking that there was a direct reprisal when CUPE appeared in front of this committee. This is very disturbing, and I think the committee will have to follow up on it.

Are you concerned about reprisals for having given what is extremely important and compelling testimony to this committee?

[Kirsten Brazier]

We've experienced reprisal in a small way all along since we started our company, in that, not having an arbitrator to take our concerns to when there was an issue over policy versus law, we were threatened. Initially we were told we would not be granted our certificate.

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

When you say you were threatened, what was that?

[Kirsten Brazier]

Well, when you have sunk all your money into purchasing and insuring and repairing an airplane in preparation for launch.... We were applying for certification for our company, and of course we were trying to follow procedures and the letter of the law in order to meet the standard to get our certificate. At that early stage—and there are many other examples—we had issues with various inspectors and the department that we were dealing with for our own certification, and there was no place to take those concerns. Basically, the answer to our dilemma was “You must do X in order to achieve Y”, which was getting our certificate.

Subsequent examples involved other operators whom we did work for. When Transport wanted policy incorporated in their manual with no basis in law and we asked for mediation or for an independent opinion on the law, we were told in one instance—actually, the operator was told directly—that if they continued with the type of manual we were doing, they would get a very serious audit or a very in-depth audit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask my questions—

[A witness]

Could I say something on that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Maybe through another question.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, before I go into my questions, could I ask first of all that Mr. Julian provide the committee with a copy of the section of the moving forward report that actually suggests there is going to be a 46% reduction in the number of inspectors? He used the word “attrition”, and somehow, in his lexicon of aeronautical terms, he equates that with an actual reduction of inspectors. My understanding of “attrition” is a natural movement out of a firm or a company, due to age and retirement, of employees who would typically be replaced, but I'm sure Mr. Julian has his own definition of attrition.

Second, Mr. Chair, could I ask Mr. Balnis to table with the committee the brown envelopes he referred to? We were just talking about transparency. Mr. Rubin took a great deal of time telling us how important transparency is. Obviously, if there are references to brown envelopes, we should have the contents of those, so that we know those allegations are true.

Getting to the actual questions, Ms. Brazier, am I correct in understanding that you're drawing a distinction between the small operators—the air taxis—and the airline industry? I sensed that's what you were saying, that your industry, being the smaller operators, isn't ready yet for implementation of SMS. Did I understand that correctly?

[Kirsten Brazier]

Let me just clarify a small point. When you shrink us down like that as “smaller operators”...our companies may be one- and two-airplane operators, but our size as an industry on the air taxi and the AMO side far outweighs the size of the airline industry and the commuters. We contribute more to the gross domestic product than those airlines, whose incomes and profits all go offshore. So I might suggest that we are actually a very large part of the affected—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I didn't intend to imply that you're not a large part. I'm just asking whether you're making a distinction between this large industry, which is the smaller operators, and the airline industry, which is the big carriers.

[Kirsten Brazier]

If you look at the division of the CARs and how it is structured, you will see that each and every section of the CARs is very different. The air taxi, the aerial work, the private operators, the airlines, and commuters are all very different, which is why they've been given their own regulatory structure.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But it's your position that your particular industry, being the smaller operators, isn't mature enough yet to implement SMS. Is that correct?

[Kirsten Brazier]

You could say that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You are not suggesting that the airlines shouldn't be looking at implementing SMS, which in fact they've already done. And you are not suggesting that they should back out of SMS, are you?

[Kirsten Brazier]

We're not suggesting anything on anybody else's behalf. As our own selves, as an air taxi operator, we can only offer you our own perspective. And as we've stated, we feel that SMS is a good business tool, but it's not something you can legislate into making an industry think safely.

I think we've covered that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Now to each one of you, other than Ms. Brazier, do you support SMS in principle, as a program that will improve air safety provided that the appropriate oversight is in place?

Mr. Balnis.

[Richard Balnis]

That's the question where you get lost. Don't ask about the theory. Look at how it's being implemented now. The response we would give...are we against SMS, are we against our employers running themselves properly, to have a safety plan and a policy? You'll see in those tabs what's required: to have trained employees, to have documented procedures. You would think these airlines do it now. But if we are most definitely against the SMS that is being implemented now by TC, it's because you need some key changes in the law to make it work.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. Given the right context, you would support SMS.

[Richard Balnis]

Not the right context, the right elements.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right, the right elements.

I used the term “regulatory oversight”.

[Richard Balnis]

No, sir. What was astonishing when—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like to get to answers here too.