Transport Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Richard Balnis]

It's a tough area, sure.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I want to take whatever time we have left here to explore something we haven't explored before. How does SMS get implemented? Is there an exchange of correspondence? Are there reports, letters, memos, meetings? And who attends these? Are the flight attendants involved? Is their opinion sought? Are the pilots involved, and is their opinion sought? Are there meetings, and are there inspectors at these meetings?

Do you have a sense of how these systems get implemented? It might be helpful in understanding how they eventually would operate or are operating, in some cases.

[Richard Balnis]

In the documents you will see, though we did not put this forward, that the regulations were passed June 15, 2005, without waiting for Bill C-6, under an existing authority. The very same day, the regulations were exempted.

The document that is in tab 5, if I'm not mistaken, was then used as a three-year phase-in period, and each carrier has to do certain things to meet certain milestones. Transport Canada goes in and involves themselves in the process to make sure they have done this or that. If you fail to meet a milestone, they will threaten to suspend.

Within each company the company sets up its own process. We at Air Canada were involved at monthly meetings, but we haven't been involved for the last year and a half, because we raised uncomfortable questions.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Were there inspectors at these meetings?

[Richard Balnis]

At that point in time, Transport Canada and Air Canada had a fight, and the inspectors weren't there. For about a year the inspectorate was not in attendance at those meetings. At those meetings we raised such issues as how the Canada Labour Code might apply to SMS. Well, Air Canada wasn't interested in that question; the inspectors weren't there.

Similarly, as we understand it, the airlines will receive an audit. The inspectors will go in and ask if you've met the requirements on our staff instruction in tab 4. Then there will be an assessment that they have met them or have not.

We will not be invited to those meetings by Transport Canada. We will not be invited to those meetings by the air carrier. Transport regards the certificate holder as the one they do transactions with, and we are not invited.

We may meet separately with Transport Canada. In fact we asked in December 2006 how they approve Canada Labour Code requirements in the airlines. Five months later we have yet to get a response. We were phoned two months ago and asked if we were still interested in the response. I said, “Yes, we would still like it”, but we have yet to get it.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today. What you are telling us about the Bill is extremely useful.

My first question is for Mr. Balnis. I want to understand your involvement in this industry. Could you tell me briefly who are the people represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees? Are they the pilots, the inspectors, the flight attendants? Do you cover all the companies in this industry? Could you give me some information about that?

[Richard Balnis]

CUPE represents 550,000 public and private sector employees across Canada. We are predominantly a public sector union--municipalities, school boards, hospitals. In 1986 the Canadian—

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Tell me only about the air industry, please.

[Richard Balnis]

Yes. In 1986, the flight attendants joined CUPE as part of our division. They've been with us for 21 years, and I've been working with them for 21 years.

In the airlines, we represent only small numbers of employees at smaller airports in the aviation industry. For example, the airport in Sudbury is a municipal airport, so they would be CUPE members. Hamilton airport is CUPE members.

Other than flight attendants, our aviation presence is limited. We do not represent inspectors; we do not represent pilots; we do not represent mechanics. We are exclusively flight attendants plus these airport workers in the airline industry.

We have other federal workers, like the Port of Montreal débardeurs, the dock workers, but they're outside aviation. It's flight attendants almost exclusively in the aviation industry, and we have other workers in the federal jurisdiction.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You also know the small operators, like Dax Air Inc., whose flight attendants you represent.

[Richard Balnis]

No. Flight attendants are not required to be on aircraft under 20 seats. CAR 705, 703, and 704 do not have flight attendants. We could never represent someone who is not there.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

All right. Thank you.

I would now like to know what you think about the designated organizations mentioned in the Bill and about which there is not much information in your report, I believe. What do you think of the creation of those designated organizations?

[Richard Balnis]

We were very concerned about it. I think the question asked of the CBAA was whether it was self-regulation. What we've tried to do in tabs 8 and 9 is give you the regulations that existed before the CBAA and the regulations afterwards. As you can see on page 17, they have enormous powers that are just like the government's. They control issues--for example, cabin safety procedures and flight and duty time limitations for pilots. PPCs have been watered down as a result. They can now be given by someone other than the minister. They decided on their own. The fatigue risk management system can entirely replace regulations.

When you're considering those matters of public safety, we believe it should be the government that does it and not a designated organization. Is it going to be airports next? Back in 2006, in Halifax, they were talking commercial air operators.

We are very concerned when you turn over those important public functions to a body that is a designated organization. That's why we offered you the two options--either delete it or make it a lot tougher and more restricted. We understand there will be an amendment from the government coming on this. As Mr. Preuss said, for six years they didn't realize the concerns you were expressing. Perhaps there will be some light in that amendment that will go some way to addressing our concerns, but how far it goes in the industry needs to be heavily circumscribed.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have one minute.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mrs. Brazier, after having read the Bill, do you have the feeling that designated organizations could from now on replace the Safety Management System in your company, on top of what you are already doing about safety?

[Kirsten Brazier]

I'm sorry. Can you...?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

The Bill includes designated organizations which could represent Transport Canada in the implementation of the Safety Management System in some small operations. Large companies have already developed their own Management System but the designated organizations could be made responsible for its implementation in small operations.

Is that how you read the Bill?

[Kirsten Brazier]

We don't know of any other operators like ours that have that kind of system in place. A test project was done on a few operators not representative of the entire air taxi industry. With respect to the airlines, even though that's not within our purview, I would have to defer to what Mr. Balnis had to say on that topic. We would not support a designated organization. The government is responsible to hold us accountable to the law.

They do actually defer things such as PPCs, as you mentioned, to independent organizations. We have some issues with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth is next.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start out by saying that I really do believe the role of this committee is to work on this legislation with the government as a group, and to try to focus on creating what many of our witnesses have called a culture of safety--not create it, because it's already in the Canadian aeronautics industry, but help to enhance it--and to bring us to the forefront of safety in the world, as the ICAO has put it.

I have to admit I'm a little bit surprised. We've sat here, as Mr. Fast has said, with several organizations and several witnesses. I will admit some have been against certain aspects of SMS, but even among those, even Judge Moshansky says he is in favour of the SMS theory. He actually took credit for helping to be one of the founders of SMS theory.

We've had the pilots associations in front of us; they're all very supportive. I get constant contact and e-mails from our pilots association and pilots. I unfortunately have the opportunity to fly on a fairly regular basis. I talk to airline stewardesses and pilots with Air Canada and WestJet all the time, and they all seem to think in person that it's a good idea.

Admittedly some of them may not be as involved with the details of it, but the people I talk to seem to believe this is a good system, at least in theory, especially if we keep the regulations that are already in place, which do make us one of the safest countries in the world in aviation.

That being said, I do want to get your feedback on this.

Mr. Rubin, I'll come to you in a second.

Ms. Brazier, I'd like to ask you one thing. Something continues to puzzle me here: the threats of reprisal. I'm just naive to this. What kind of threat are we talking about? What kinds of actions are you talking about? Have you ever received any of these threats in the past?

[Kirsten Brazier]

[Inaudible--Editor]...our business. So our fate rides on the hand of the government—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, can I have a point of clarification?