Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 91-105 of 108
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Transport committee  There is no scientific study, in the pure, gold standard sense, that proves smoking causes cancer. But I think we believe that. There's a lot of evidence there. And the practitioners on those aircraft, from their own experience, sir, believe there will be a reduction in safety

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  I believe it's on the first page past the cover page in the poll that was given to you in English and French. The unweighted number of interviews was 1,011. The weighted number of interviews was 1,000, and it's broken down by territory and later in gender. It's on page 2.

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  Of course, sir.

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  Could I answer your comment on the risk assessment? On slide 8 of our presentation, the scores we gave you are the scores in the risk assessment. They score 1:40 passengers at 404 and the U.S. rule at 256. Those are TC's own numbers. There's a margin of safety there. That one, si

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  To respond to why it was compared to the U.S., WestJet repeatedly made the argument that they needed to be competitive with the U.S. because they were entering the transborder market. That was their argument. That was their direct competitor, and that's why we used the U.S. In

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  And on 72 hours' notice, too.

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  And it was surprising...until we managed to pull out this November 2004 document. Finding Transport Canada documents is like digging, but eventually this popped out. We kept asking and asking. This staff report was phenomenal; they said they didn't examine the implications or the

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  On the Australian rule, back in June 2003 we learned that the.... In fact, in this document here, dated June 2, 2003, we submitted this evidence to the risk assessment that Transport Canada was conducting at the time. We were told, “You're too late, we've made our recommendation

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  Just to go to page 5 of Transport Canada's slide, CUPE, ACPA, ALPA, the teamsters, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind all expressed their opposition in principle to the proposal. We e

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  I would like to disagree with Mr. Gaspar. I would think if anybody is going to go to a 1:50 ratio, it's Air Canada. The A320 accounts for 51 aircraft of their 200 aircraft fleet. Who knows what other little mitigating factors may disappear in the wash? My own gut instinct is t

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  On the slide you saw three or four flight attendants. The reality is that in a crash, some of those flight attendants will die or be incapacitated. That's what the U.S. NTSB said for a study of redundancy, that there may not be all the flight attendants when that plane finally co

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  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 t

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  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.

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  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

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis

Transport committee  We believe Parliament, you as MPs, are the ones at the end of the day who go back to your constituents and say, “Here's what my....”

June 20th, 2006Committee meeting

Richard Balnis