Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I would like to make a constructive comment to help improve your future presentations. You probably know that in Canada, the metric system has been in use for a number of decades. In your presentation, in the same sentence, you refer to both inches and centimetres. Perhaps I am a little slow, but it would be good for you to simply use the metric system. I can give you some examples.

You refer to the weapons used during the September 11 attacks, knives under 3.5 inches long. It is true they were used in American airspace where the metric system is not in use, but on page 2 of the French version, you refer to tools that are less than 6 centimetres long. On page 4, you refer to scissors under 2.5 inches long. It would be useful for people who do not use inches to be able to understand. My comment is not mean-spirited and, in fact, I commend you on the quality of your brief.

Your union represents only in-charge flight attendants and cabin crew members. It does not represent ticket clerks at boarding, those who would have allowed women wearing the burqa to board an Air Canada flight in Dorval. I would not want to be accused of intolerance. In any event, I will read the blues.

So you only represent people who work on board the planes. Is that correct?

[Richard Balnis]

There's someone called an in-charge flight attendant. At Air Canada, they're called the service director. We represent all the in-charge flight attendants and flight attendants on board the aircraft.

In the case you were referring to, the counter agents would have been represented by the CAW, the Auto Workers, not by us.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

My colleague, Mr. McCallum, addressed the issue of the 25% drop in the number of police officers on flights, or air marshalls. Was this information made public? Has it been put down in writing?

When it comes to security, we know a number of psychological factors may prevent terrorism and the fact that there could be air marshalls on board could serve as a deterrent. Is there written evidence of this 25% drop in the number of officers?

[Richard Balnis]

There have been a number of media articles in April and May of 2010, and November and December of 2010, and I believe the Airline Pilots Association, ALPA, has written objecting to those cuts.

So is there a document? No. Are there media reports, yes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

In other words, because it is written in newspapers, it is true. Is that what you are telling me? I would not want journalists to start a war against me, but do you have written evidence of this? If so, I would like to have a copy of it.

[Richard Balnis]

Beyond the media reports, no, I have not, sir.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I have another question. You have heard Mr. McGarr, who testified before you. I think it is my colleague from Manicouagan who asked a question of Mr. McGarr regarding the preparation of the list for permitted and prohibited items. He said that Transport Canada drew up this list. He seem to be washing his hands of it: CATSA simply uses the list prepared by Transport Canada. Yet, you, in your brief, were far more critical.

I would like to get back to what you say on page 5 of your French document. You say “CATSA appears to have been given far too much influence in this process, to the detriment of aviation safety and security.” You use the words “appears to have been given far too much influence in this process”.

Does this mean that you do not believe Mr. McGarr when he states that CATSA indeed did not have a say as to the Transport Canada list? You do not believe that?

[Richard Balnis]

No, I don't believe that answer. CATSA was part of the working group. On these key items, such as restraining devices, they filed a dissent. They have had one line: “It doesn't affect aviation security.” Between October 2008 and February 3, 2011, somehow Transport Canada agreed with CATSA, even though their own risk assessment said that metal and plastic handcuffs should not be allowed. What changed Transport Canada's mind? I don't know what changed Transport Canada's mind, but I know that the CATSA position prevailed.

What I am worried by is that in the last column of our chart they have gone further than the Transport Canada prohibited items list and allowed scissors with blunt ends in excess, as you said, of ten centimetres—or longer, without limit. They have gone beyond the prohibited items list on their website.

If that is what they are enforcing, I believe they are not in conformity with the Transport Canada prohibited items list that was announced by the minister on February 3. That needs to be corrected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Balnis, for bringing this to our attention. It's certainly given us a lot more information about the nature of what's going on than I think we got from CATSA earlier.

I want to get back to your concern about flight attendants. What is the level of in-flight safety and security training that flight attendants get? Do you think that under the current safety management system of our major airlines we're giving people sufficient training for security? To my mind, probably the unruly passenger is the most likely source of a problem for an attendant in the plane.

[Richard Balnis]

I think we have to distinguish the training for safety under a safety management system and the training for security.

That issue of security training is now being reviewed by the department. They actually published changes to the Canadian aviation security regulations in the Canada Gazette last Friday. They will be publishing further changes, and we believe they will be diluting the training, as it stands now, unless we can convince them otherwise. On the issue of security, it is part of their regular annual recurrent training that they do scenarios with pilots. But we believe the training will be diluted in the new regulations coming up this fall of 2011.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do you think there is any merit in protective clothing for flight attendants that would eliminate the risk of their being stabbed or being slashed? Is that something that in any regard would be a safety feature that could add to the security of the personnel on board the airplane?

[Richard Balnis]

In reading the staff report to the 9/11 commission, you find that most witness reports that they had were about slashing of the throats. Unless you had some sort of armoured outfit, I don't think you would be protected.

A bladed weapon is what a police officer fears. I went to the United States to meet with some officials there, and they said, “If you point a gun in my face, it's really easy for me to get that gun away from you. But a blade I don't see coming.”

I don't envision any of the airlines introducing that kind of protective clothing, particularly around the throat and other body parts. I don't think it would be effective, because even police officers with body armour can be slashed in the throat.

So I'll think about it, sir, but right off the top of my head, I don't think it will happen.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When you think about it and think about weapons, you go through into secure areas and there are glass bottles available. All kinds of things are available that could be turned into weapons by anyone who had a malicious intent on board an airplane.

Wouldn't the most likely place to control this be during training, using those techniques to make sure that employees are as safe as possible, through the training they get, so they can deal with the situations that may come up?

[Richard Balnis]

At the present time, the training to evade and avoid a grasp is what is taught. Self-defence techniques to get away from you if you come at me are taught, but for me to attempt to deal with you in a more aggressive fashion, that is not taught today. We have had long and hard debates within our union on whether we wanted to do that, and effective training for you to be proficient in self-defence would take more than a day. It involves recurrent training. It involves many days over the year to be proficient in it. For a flight attendant who's five foot eight to bring down someone of your size, or anyone else's size, you need more than just a one-hour video. I'm using you because you asked the question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes. Thank you for that, because that's something I see as being preventive rather than reactive to issues.

I do see that if someone has malicious intent, then that's the problem. What we have with these scissors I think is a problem that has come with all the carry-on luggage. So many people have them in their manicure sets or moustache trimming sets, or whatever you have, and they're carrying them on the planes now because that's the nature of travel. You take your carry-on bag with those types of things in it. So I can understand there are two points of view here. One of them is that the passengers need to carry these things with them. They're going to another place and they need to have their scissors with them.

So there has to be some kind of.... You can find threat in almost everything, but you have to decide. All these things have to be worked out in terms of risk and threat, and I'd say this particular one, the small scissors, is one that probably has brought more concern to individuals than any other item, because that's one thing that people will carry with them.

[Richard Balnis]

I understand, sir, but on other items that were announced by the minister that were ruled by the threat and risk assessment not to be brought on board, the minister changed his mind and went against the staff recommendation. On the matter of the scissors, two-and-a-half-inch scissors are sharp, and when broken in half can slit your throat.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have 30 seconds.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

In terms of this issue with the staff of airplanes and their need to go through security, what's the position of the union on that? Do you want to see that opened up?

[Richard Balnis]

We have respectfully disagreed with our pilots on the issue of non-passenger screening. We believe that non-passenger screening, an ICAO recommendation, is operative with some of our international partners. At the present time we believe non-passenger screening, when crew go through the bypass doors and are searched, is a valid approach. It's not at 100%. It is not 100% in Canada, but for example if you go to London's Heathrow, it is 100% for all crew there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

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

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I thank you, Mr. Balnis, for showing up today. I think you're the only one, in my five years or so of being the parliamentary secretary here, who has actually been at more meetings than I have. You're at a lot of meetings, anyway.

I wanted to let you know, secondly, that I was a CUPE member back in the seventies. I feel I should call you brother, but I already have seven of them, so I won't call you that. But I do understand the union mentality, and I appreciate your standing up for the people you work for. I think that's very important.

Along with that, sir, I want to let you know I have been a super elite member for about six years now. I've been flying a lot. I fly all over internationally and otherwise, and I have to say that I think these moves by the Canadian government are good. Frankly, my understanding is that Canada's security system is much stricter about articles than many of the other countries around the world, including the United States. This will actually bring us back to a norm.

I want to understand exactly what the situation is, but I think there are 230 airlines that belong to the security perimeter. When I say security perimeter, I'm talking about international airlines that have agreements with other countries—115 countries in this case—where they have, in essence, a security perimeter around each of the airports, which creates a huge security perimeter around the world for international travellers. That's how I envision airport security, because not anyone can join the security network. Libya, for instance, can't fly planes into that security network. Only countries that actually belong to ITAC, I believe, and ICAO are allowed to be part of that international security perimeter. We in Canada now are bringing our rules into compliance with those other 115 countries that already have most of these rules. Is that fair to say?

[Richard Balnis]

I think the organization you were referring to is IATA. I think you said ITAC.