TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 0959

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're here to hear witnesses with regard to the safety and security of airlines in Canada.

• 1000

This morning we have two witnesses: Monsieur Paul Benoit, president and CEO of Macdonald-Cartier International Airport; and Neil Raynor, the CAC executive director.

Gentlemen, we'd like to have your introductory notes before we start our rounds of questioning. We have one hour.

Mr. R. Neil Raynor (Executive Director, Canadian Airports Council): Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Ladies and gentlemen, honourable members, good morning. Thank you for inviting us here today.

My name is Neil Raynor. I'm executive director of the Canadian Airports Council. I'm going to talk about the council in a moment, but first I'd like to tell you that with me this morning is Monsieur Paul Benoit. Paul is both chairman of the CAC and chief executive officer of the Ottawa international airport.

Representing the people who operate Canada's airports, CAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss the important matters under review by the committee at this time. I'm going to make a short presentation with Paul Benoit, and then both he and I will respond to your questions. We would be happy to take those in either official language.

I'm going to start by describing the organization, because I know that people often wonder what industry associations are and who they represent. There is some background information that I've left with the clerk and that can be circulated to the committee members.

First, some background. CAC is the voice of Canada's airports. It was founded in 1991, so just ten years ago. CAC represents the interests of airport authorities established as a result of the federal airport devolution program. Our membership includes 36 airport authorities that operate some 95 airports between them. They range in size from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which operates Lester B. Pearson and serves over 25 million passengers every year, to smaller airports that serve fewer than 25,000.

CAC members are non-share entities specifically established to run and develop the airports as self-sustaining businesses. There are no shareholders. That's a point I perhaps would stress and let sink in. It's a very important point. Any profits our members generate are reinvested in the business, back into the infrastructure, and back into our communities. The non-share structure has allowed airport authorities to both improve the standard of service at Canada's airports to ensure users' safe and smooth transit through the air transportation system and to renew the airport infrastructure, which suffered considerably under the investment in the 1980s and the 1990s.

The capital investment that has resulted from devolution is one of the most noteworthy successes of the policy. In 1992, when the airports were first transferred, annual capital expenditures by the federal government amounted to just some $50 million. This year the airport authorities across Canada, at the eight largest airports, are investing more than $1.7 billion in capital projects. Those projects do more than just improve the airport infrastructure; they also create thousands of construction jobs, and the related jobs that go with them, across Canada.

By improving and modernizing facilities, they also create additional permanent employment at airports, adding to the ranks of the approximately 200,000 people directly and indirectly employed at Canada's airports. Now, just to be very clear, they're not employed by the airports, but approximately 200,000 Canadians are employed directly and indirectly because of the activity at Canada's airports. And all of those benefits have been created without taxpayer support.

There are other successes as well. Canada's airports today are operated more efficiently and with greater emphasis on serving airport customers and other users. With commercially focused management teams and community-based boards of directors, airport authorities are fully integrated into the economic development strategies of the communities they serve. Communities can now make maximum use of their airports to drive prosperity and development in their region.

• 1005

Given the progress and given the success, Canada's airports are anxious to ensure that the many accomplishments resulting from devolution are not jeopardized.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Benoit (President and CEO, Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, Canadian Airports Council): However... [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]... in the aviation sector have experienced considerable changes after the tragic events of September 11.

The Canadian Airports Council thinks it is possible to significantly improve the organization of air security in order to deal with the present reality. What was adequate before September 11 is not necessarily so today.

Any effort made to improve airport safety must however reassure the public about the air transportation system. Canadians expect the air transportation system to be both safe and accessible, and the CAC believes we can improve the present approach without compromising either expectation.

Uncertainty is terrorists' most effective weapon.

[English]

In our view, overcoming uncertainty amongst air travellers requires building confidence in both the security measures designed to protect the passengers and the convenience and reliability of air travel. Unless our approach to security balances both of these needs, we will hand the terrorists a victory.

Let me be very clear: The system that was in place prior to September 11 was appropriate and proportionate to the threat we understood at that time. However, it is very clear that the threat we face today is different and therefore demands a different approach.

Addressing the immediate and longer-term challenges requires a system that is integrated, coordinated, and balanced. Meeting these tests will entail important changes in how security is organized at Canada's airports. A priority area for improving involves passenger screening at the airports. You've all gone through that in the last few weeks, and you've seen how difficult it has been.

Today these activities are the responsibility of the air carriers. Canada's airports are ready, willing, and able to take over these duties as part of a reorganization of airport security arrangements. As the operators of airports across the country, the Canadian Airport Council members have practical experience with the operational issues that need to be addressed around security. In addition, transferring these activities to airport authorities would integrate passenger and baggage screening activities with air-side and general airport security, duties that the airports presently undertake.

It would result in better security, better service to the passenger and employees, and create, most importantly, a greater public confidence.

Airports would serve under this formula as agents of the Crown, responsible for carrying out these duties on a day-to-day basis according to standards set by the federal government. Such an arrangement would result in better coordination and clearer accountability for security matters, and would maintain an appropriate arm's length relationship between the federal government, who acts as the monitor and regulator of the security, and airports, who would act as the operator of the service.

This is a system that has been employed with great success in Europe, particularly in Great Britain, providing seamless operational command and control and appropriate oversight. If the European experience provides any indication, putting airports in charge of security could be a solution to the alarming rate of turnovers amongst staff currently involved in the pre-screening process. Reducing turnover through better human resources management would see training enhanced, and would also create potential employee job enrichments, career paths, through integration with the current airport security systems.

• 1010

Mr. Neil Raynor: A key issue in all of this is who should pay for the costs associated with the new security arrangements. Acts of terrorism—and our position was entirely consistent before the acts of September 11—whenever, wherever, and however they occur are acts of violence directed against the state. As such, responsibility for protecting the welfare of the public in Canada against such acts ultimately rests with the Government of Canada.

It goes beyond just the travelling public. It is actually the welfare of the public in Canada that's at risk. So it's appropriate that this responsibility should rest with the Government of Canada.

In the case of protecting the air transportation system, this responsibility includes the cost of policing, general airport security, pre-board screening, and explosive-detection activities in the post-September 11 environment. Since September 11, airports have paid a significant price in terms of lost revenue and increased security costs. Some smaller airports have seen costs rise by as much as 60%—that's 60% of their total costs—as a result of the new federally mandated security measures. This has come just as traffic has declined significantly.

It also coincides with significant increases in the rent that airport authorities must pay to Transport Canada. We're working with Transport Canada to resolve this situation. We share a commitment to ensure that security arrangements at Canada's airports are organized to meet the public's interest in safety and accessibility, and we share the desire to assist, rather than impair, the recovery of the aviation industry in this country in the aftermath of September 11.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Benoit: Canadian airports have remarkably improved over the past 10 years. The federal government and its officials are to be lauded for their vision in implementing the National Airport Program. We must also congratulate airport authorities and their employees who made that program work.

We believe the next decade will be as productive as the last one. Industry and government approaches to the new realities that emerged after September 11 will no doubt impact this promise.

I am confident members of this Committee share CAC goals relating to future challenges.

Thank you. We will be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks very much, gentlemen. That was a good one-two punch.

We'll start with James Moore of the Alliance.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I have a question with regard to caterers' access to airplanes. Has the screening regime for caterers been beefed up since September 11? What was the regime prior to September 11 in terms of their general access to airplanes?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Catering access regulations have been beefed up substantially. Airlines now have a series of directives, if I can put it that way, imposed by Transport Canada on what must be checked, including what must be sealed prior to getting the equipment on and off airplanes.

I would say that the airport system we operated prior to September 11, as I said earlier, was, for the circumstances that we knew of, safe. Today the system is far safer than it ever has been, and I've been in the business for 35 years. The security measures for caterers, and indeed any vehicles that are going onto the airport, are screened within a security perimeter. They are verified for passes against outstanding lists, be they caterers or any airport vehicle. As you know, myriad vehicles will come in there to serve an airplane.

At the Ottawa airport, for example, they are checked at each end—as they enter the facility, into the terminal area—in terms of who is on there, what is on the vehicle, and whether there are seals on all the equipment in there.

Mr. James Moore: Another question I have is regarding smaller and regional airports, and their security regimes, relative to the larger airports.

I was a student in Prince George, where the airport has two gates and that's basically it. The secure area is actually just one room, and it's literally a pen. I used to fly on student standby all the time, so I'm accustomed to sleeping in airports. There was a time, I remember, when some of the panes of glass were missing.

At any rate, it's just physically a pen area, and you'd have family members sitting on one side of a velvet rope just talking to the people on the other side, people who'd gone through security and who were now secure. That's all there was. These people were then flying to Vancouver and then on to Hong Kong or Toronto or wherever else.

• 1015

Tell the committee, if you would, about the differing levels of security standards and whether or not those standards have been erased or there is a plan to have them erased.

Mr. Neil Raynor: Just to pick up on your next-to-last question, the same security standard applies at all airports. It's implemented in different ways. There's a big difference between Lester B. Pearson and, say, Kelowna; there's no difference in terms of the level of security.

As for long-term things, as we've been discussing, explosive-detection systems, for instance, it's been in our minds—and this is also from working with Transport Canada—that we have to give assurance to the public, long term, that wherever they fly from they're going to be secure. So the short answer to that question is, yes, some of those things did apply prior to September 11, and they were within the bounds of the rules laid down by the regulator, Transport Canada. Many of those things have been changed. For instance, doors that beforehand the airline personnel would have had free access to, between the uncleared side and the cleared side, have been barred. It would have been only the airline personnel who could have gone through those doors, but even so, post-September 11, that's been closed off. So changes have been made at all levels.

Mr. James Moore: I know you're aware of the debate happening in the United States, and it's interesting to see how it's shaping up. On the one hand, you have people in the United States, particularly Democrats in the Senate, who are saying that what should happen is they should re-nationalize airport security, because as federal civil servants you can have more attractive pension packages and more attractive salary rates, and therefore you can attract a higher calibre of people relative to what security firms can offer. They also would be under the direct thumb of the federal government.

On the other hand, you have people, largely on the right, who are saying, well, if you do that, you won't be able to fire people who are doing their jobs inadequately. If they are privatized, you can fire people who are doing their jobs inadequately and have term, limited contracts, up to a maximum of 36 months, as they do in Israel with El Al.

So there's a clear debate going on in terms of what is more efficient. In this country that may be a debate we may have to entertain.

Relative to the American debate and how it may impact Canada, I was wondering if you two gentlemen might offer comment on that and what we may learn from that debate, because those are clear principles in conflict.

Mr. Paul Benoit: That's a very good question, and one that we have been debating ourselves. The Canadian Airports Council does not support creating, shall we say, a new public service, or federalizing the system to that degree.

I will use some examples in terms of the one you've brought, sir. Under the current system, an employee who fails at his security machine is retrained. If he fails a second time, he is terminated. That's harsh. I would challenge you to do that under the Public Service Alliance contracts that exist out there.

I would go one further. The crux of the problem is not whether they're federalized or whether they are privatized. The crux is that today these employees who work under contract for the airlines are paid approximately $7.75 an hour.

Transport Canada, and indeed the government, has taken a bum rap over the last few months—I don't know how the translators are going to handle “bum rap”, but that's up to them—because we have not been able to issue security passes fast enough, as you know, for the new guards. The issue is not that; it's why are they quitting. At $7.70 you leave the airport to go work at McDonald's because that's a promotion, so you have your security guards working at McDonald's.

Under the system we are proposing, these employees would be paid the same rates as we're paying, for example, the corps of commissionaires, which is $14 to $15 an hour. They would be integrated within our police force so that, one, they would have a chance of advancement within the system, working in our pass bureaus, working within our security departments. They would also have an opportunity to get out from working at that machine. Standing behind a screen for five to eight hours—I defy anybody to do it and still be functioning at 100%. You would work outside, on the curb or doing security perimeter patrols, and then you would go back in. So you would be part of a force. You would be motivated.

So as for the whole debate around it being federalized.... I think in some ways it's like the airport. In my case, I have an airport operating certificate that I signed off as the chief employee at Ottawa airport. If we mess that up at Ottawa airport, I am personally responsible for that. It's our operating certificate. We would encourage, under the system that is adopted and modified, that the airport authority be held accountable by the regulator. There's something incestuous about having the legislator, the regulator, and the operator acting in concert at the same time.

• 1020

If I have a problem, I'll just go out to the door guy down the hall, and he'll fix it for me, because we've all worked together for the last 15 years. That's the reality of the world.

Mr. James Moore: That's a question for the committee, then. I suspect most people on the committee have, as I have, heard from Air Canada, who want it federalized.

It's a dollar question. If you're asking the airlines to double their cost on the labour side, increasing their contract costs for airport security by an aggregate of 35% overall, are they going to pay for that? How are they going to pay for that? Will it be user fees? In Vancouver, for instance, they have the airport improvement fee. Would you create an airport security fee? Or how do you propose that would be dealt with?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Whether it happens to be the position of the Air Transport Association of Canada, ATAC, or the position advanced by us, I think everybody recognizes that we have to fix what is broken. The fee itself, whether it is paid for, as we're advocating....

Look, this is not terrorism directed at Ottawa airport. This is terrorism directed at the state. Under ICAO treaties, under everything that's out there, terrorism is the responsibility of the state. It is somewhat ironic that every directive that has come down since September 11 has doubled our costs but come with not one cent. Add in triple the amount of armed police officers in the airport; it's our cost. The state, and indeed this committee, has a certain responsibility in funding when it's terrorism directed toward the state.

So under all scenarios that are out there, there are going to be more costs. Whether it is split in some manner between airports, airlines, and government, that remains to be seen.

As for who, and how much, approximately 40 million to 45 million—and the number is going down—are emplaned in Canada per year. Now, $2.50 may be a reasonable amount to pay to know that you're not going to have wait an hour in line to get through Ottawa airport the next time you're trying to fly home, and to know that you will be safe, but that remains to be debated. We have had very good discussions with Transport Canada on that issue.

Mr. James Moore: Very good.

Mr. Neil Raynor: Just to add to that last point, though, air transportation is the only mode that systematically gets dinged for this type of user charge, and I think we have to bear that in mind as well. The threat is there in other modes, but you don't ask the passenger to pay for that directly. I think one of our pleas is that we have to look at consistency across the modes in the way that is funded.

Mr. Paul Benoit: Mr. Chairman, can I add just one comment?

Canadian airports are not looking for a bailout. That's not our intention. We are, however, saying, on the costs you just mentioned, Mr. Moore, that Canada's airports will be paying to the Crown $250 million in rent next year. And what do we get in return?

I'll leave it at that, sir.

The Chair: Thanks, James. That was a good round of questioning.

We'll go to John Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the presentations.

First, the airport authorities have an arm's length relationship with the government, but do they report to the government?

Mr. Paul Benoit: No.

Mr. John Cannis: So if something happens, then, such as an incident, God forbid, like September 11, who takes the rap?

Mr. Paul Benoit: I guess at the end of the day.... First of all, every airport has a contractual agreement with the government. The commercial contract is a very long document, 400 pages, so you may rest assured that the government has ensured that the directives, the regulations, are still in place for us to follow.

We'll use the post-September 11 incidents as an example. There has been extremely close cooperation between the federal government, the airports, and the airlines since September 11. We're communicating almost on a daily basis. Transport Canada has issued literally at least a dozen security directives. Now, these directives must be followed under penalty of law. They are, in fact, regulations that are coming down at us.

At the end of the day, should an airport not follow.... Let's just say you have a rebel airport out there that's doing whatever they want. The government has the option, within every one of our commercial leases—so I come back to that—to legislate any changes they wish upon us. Who at the end of the day bears a responsibility? I guess in some ways it depends on who is responsible for what.

If you look at September 11, and what happened in the United States at the security checkpoints, they followed the rules. There was a worldwide breakdown in terms of the intelligence, sir.

• 1025

Mr. John Cannis: That's the point I really want to get to, because you indicated, if I may quote you, that prior to September 11, security, etc., was “appropriate”.

Mr. Paul Benoit: Correct.

Mr. John Cannis: You're saying, well, things have changed. We all agree with that, but what I'm concerned about here is that you are saying if you have the opportunity to assume that responsibility, you will meet government standards. Weren't government standards met before?

Mr. Paul Benoit: I think government standards right now are changing. The difficulty is—

Mr. John Cannis: No, no, you said, and I quote, “meet government standards”. I'm saying, they weren't meeting government standards before, in your opinion?

Mr. Paul Benoit: No, sir, it's that they met the appropriate standards that were needed at that time. The world has changed.

Mr. Neil Raynor: Including the standards.

Mr. Paul Benoit: Yes, including the standards. The standards right now have changed dramatically. How many passengers, for example, before September 11 had to turn on a computer or a phone as they were going through security? As we, as Transport Canada, as the government—as all of us—understood the threat prior to September 11, I don't think anybody contemplated that people would train for ten years to fly an airplane that was full of passengers into a building. I don't think it was in anybody's plan, sir.

Mr. John Cannis: Two last questions, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned that you would enhance training. Do the people in security have ongoing training programs implemented by whoever provides that security, in your view, whether it's your GTA people or people who provide the security? I mean, we know things change. Technology changes on an ongoing basis. Are you saying there was no continuous orientation, upgrade, etc.?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Absolutely not.

Mr. John Cannis: So that's in violation of the agreement, I would assume.

Mr. Paul Benoit: No, no, I'm saying, in answer to your question, absolutely not. There was complete training before, mandated by Transport Canada and regulated by Transport Canada. Every airport has Transport Canada-assigned inspectors who ensure that the security is followed and that the employee passes. At the end of their training period, as well as their recurrent training, they must be certified by Transport Canada inspectors.

That's far from saying there was nothing before, because there was before, and it's enhanced today over what it had been. That's what we're saying.

Mr. John Cannis: In terms of costs...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...the air traffic controllers association that every year they return to the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe my colleagues can correct me on that if I misheard.

What is their investment in this?

Mr. Paul Benoit: That's something you'd have to direct to the air traffic controllers.

Mr. John Cannis: But in your opinion; it's a matter of dollars and cents as well, not just technology. To buy a piece of software or hardware costs money. In your view, do you think they—referring to the airlines—get rebates of hundreds of millions of dollars, as according to the air traffic controllers association? Is there not an obligation on their part to take some of these returned moneys and put them into new technology, etc.?

Mr. Paul Benoit: I don't have an opinion on something I don't know anything about with regard to the air traffic controllers union, who may have turned around and made statements. Not knowing what they said, sir, I have nothing I can advance on that.

Mr. Neil Raynor: I'm not sure I can answer that last question, but perhaps I can go back to training. You asked if there was continuous training. The bigger issue, the fundamental problem we have at the moment, is the turnover in staff. It takes about forty hours of basic training for one of these staffers, and yet the half-life of a security person on those pre-board screenings is three months. It's very difficult to adequately train and motivate when you have that sort of turnover.

Mr. John Cannis: Do you agree, whether it be a public or private employee, if they're not performing their duties, no matter what, after first or second notice they can be and should be terminated?

Mr. Neil Raynor: Yes, I believe that to be correct. I think it's more a question of motivation. As Mr. Benoit has indicated, if you can enrich their jobs, if you can give them a wider scope, if you can give motivation for progression, then you are going to keep people on task. These are knowledgeable people. They know what they're looking at. You train them well to start with and you keep updating that training, because the threat continuously changes. You have to work on an ongoing basis.

Mr. John Cannis: You've been very kind with your responses. Thank you.

Mr. Neil Raynor: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

The Chair: Paul, there are four minutes left for the Liberals.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I'll wait for another round.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Monsieur Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can you please briefly describe your security responsibilities prior to September 11?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Airports are responsible for airport police and for ensuring safety through the presence of security guards. However, they are not responsible for the screening areas.

• 1030

Mr. Mario Laframboise: All right.

After the September 11 events, Aéroports de Montréal called a press conference but decided to cancel it later. Was there a reason for that?

Mr. Paul Benoit: This is interesting. On September 11, the managers of all world airports were attending a world airport conference in Montreal. You can well imagine. I was at the podium with Minister Collenette when I received a note saying there was an attack against the World Trade Center. We were all at the wrong place, if you see what I mean. Everyone should have been in his own airport. But we were attending a conference.

I don't know whether Aéroports de Montréal called a press conference or not. I am sorry, sir, I have no idea.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You're saying we should reconsider security at airports. No one will dispute that. You're making a suggestion and underlining its merits. You say that...

I can follow you when you say that airlines have a responsibility. I can even follow you when you say that airlines would prefer another organization to deal with security and luggage and passenger control. But if you say that Transport Canada will still be responsible for security services, I have to stop you.

Prior to 1987, the RCMP was responsible for security. For purely economic reasons, security was transferred to civilian organizations. At that time, the government was supporting the RCMP.

Today, you say we should keep Transport Canada and that the federal government should pay. I agree that national security is a federal responsibility and that the government should pay. We should revert to what was being done prior to 1987. In other words, I believe the RCMP should be responsible for the oversight but not the implementation of security.

We should not give this responsibility to an agency like Transport Canada, a civilian organization which showed in the past 15 years that its main focus was the cost differential in security services between airlines, government administrations, and so on. I believe we have witnessed a decrease... Even if you say you complied with Transport Canada directives—and I agree on that—I don't think these directives have changed to reflect the threat of terrorism.

That threat was definitely present in Canada, at least since 1999 when we had the Ressam case, when this terrorist crossed the border and the Americans warned us about the terrorist threat. As far as I know, we did not increase controls and we did not give airports new guidelines. The same guidelines were maintained for purely economic reasons. You are right when you say that increased security is expensive. Presently the airlines must pay. But they are in trouble. So, one way or the other, the government must act.

However why shouldn't we give back to the RCMP the responsibility for supervising airport security? After all, they are the experts in crime and terrorism. Thank you.

Mr. Paul Benoit: The answer is simple. The RCMP, which is a very professional organization, has no jurisdiction over the Criminal Code in Quebec or Ontario. Administering the Criminal Code in Quebec is the responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec and municipal police. In Ontario, it is the Ontario Provincial Police and municipal police departments.

Today, I don't really care whether regulation is done by Transport Canada or the RCMP. The important thing is to keep regulation drafting separate from regulation administration.

I can say that since 1997, when the RCMP withdrew from the airports in Montreal, Ottawa and across Canada, municipal police departments were able to meet requirements more effectively than the RCMP did, because Mounties cannot apply the Criminal Code, which is a problem.

• 1035

As for the airlines, you see a difference between them and us. Airports are nonprofit corporations. It is not to build an empire that we want this responsibility. I for one would be happy to see security in the hands of some other sector.

But we have to be aware of what is happening in our airports. In Ottawa, for example, passengers are starting to take the train. They are avoiding air travel because of the delays. We can see the problems caused by the present system, which did not exist in a previous world. Since we do not have the profit motivation, like airlines that pay their security guards $7.75 an hour, we're ready to take on this responsibility. But, believe me, this is not empire-building.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing to do with individual jurisdictions. What I am saying is that supervision of security should be given to an organization. It has nothing to do with whether or not they can apply the Criminal Code. It is simply that an organization having the expertise in matters of crime and terrorism, namely the RCMP, should supervise security.

I have no problem with airport authorities being responsible for the implementation of security in airports. And the same applies to municipal police departments. What I am saying is that the RCMP should be responsible for supervising all aspects of security and training for everyone.

My colleague is right. You have no continuing education. This is the hard reality. There is no continuing education. To me, it is part of a model. Look at ISO-compliant firms, for example. You're not an ISO-compliant firm. In matters of security, for many reasons, you did not implement the same standards as most major Canadian corporations. You mentioned some of those reasons: for example, you have a high employee turnover. Very well. Some day, however, you will have to establish a continuing education framework. You will be required to get results.

As far as I am concerned, the RCMP is the most appropriate organization to direct supervision because they know all the new weapons terrorists use. I don't believe Transport Canada has that capability, unless they become specialized in security and are capable of guessing in advance. I think there are organizations in Canada that have this capability. This is why I have difficulty when you say that Transport Canada should be the supervisor of security.

Mr. Paul Benoit: I have no problem with the RCMP being responsible. Today, Transport Canada has the mandate to do it. So we deal with them. If the government, in its wisdom, decided it to give responsibility to Customs and Excise, it would be perfectly all right. If you decide it should be the RCMP, so be it.

However when it comes to training, there may be some disagreement. Let us not forget that today, employees at screening points are those of airlines subcontractors, they are not airport employees. We would have no problem with the RCMP being responsible but Mounties cannot do the screening.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I agree with you.

Mr. Paul Benoit: We're on the same wavelength.

[English]

Mr. Neil Raynor: If I can just add to that, I think it's very important that we maintain the command and control, because part of the security is currently the responsibility of the airport operator. The chief employee of the airport is directly responsible for the activities for general airport security, but you have a different group responsible for the operation of that pre-board screening. I think one of our pleas is that we bring that together on the operational front.

I understand you're talking about a supervisory function, but as Mr. Benoit has said, however that is implemented by the federal government, it is not an issue for the airports. That's for the federal government to decide and for you to recommend, obviously, on how they might proceed.

But in terms of making sure it's implemented in the most effective way, then we would say the airport operator is the best person to do that.

The Chair: You're out of time, Mario. Thank you very much.

Mr. Szabo for ten minutes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.

On this issue of who is on the hook in terms of responsibility, when we visited Pearson, between security for airline personnel, airport staff, the grounds, Customs and Immigration, caterers, ticket sales and check-ins, screening, boarding, and baggage—a whole bunch of different areas of security opportunities—there's a mixed bag in terms of who is responsible.

• 1040

I agree with you wholeheartedly that, optimally, a coordinated approach, “one-manned”, as it were, makes a great deal of sense to ensure that there are synergies and efficiencies in the program, and effectiveness. So I don't think you're going to get much argument there.

I must admit, though, I'm a little bit disappointed. The issue of turnover among pre-screening staff, and the problems with training and motivation that you both have indicated, seems to me.... I'm going to suggest, very delicately, that we're in denial.

Maybe you could advise me, since there is a joint responsibility for security. If there's a problem, any insurance claim would sweep everybody in, so you do have a vested interest whether or not you're responsible for a particular area.

Do you have any idea what the pay is for an average screening person?

Mr. Paul Benoit: It's between $7.75 and $9, and I think you get the latter amount if you're there after—again, this is the order of magnitude we're talking now—several months. Most of them are not there that long.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Do you have an idea of any prerequisites in terms of educational level or equivalence?

Mr. Paul Benoit: I'm not aware of any. Again, these people are hired by the airlines, who would subcontract them to different security companies.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Are you aware of whether or not—and I don't know how you'd know this, but you might know—these people have these jobs full time or something other than full time?

Mr. Paul Benoit: You'd probably have a mix of the two, sir. I don't have knowledge of that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very critical area. I think these witnesses, and others, have indicated that whatever we were doing before September 11 was appropriate to the risks we perceived at the time. But I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine—I cannot imagine—how, in a situation where people have no educational prerequisite, get paid virtually minimum wage, carry two, maybe three jobs, and it's not full-time work for a vast majority of them, they are given such an important responsibility. The level of attention given to what is, I believe, the most critical security screening node in the entire system is the worst in terms of the human resources there. I'm quite disappointed that I haven't heard from anybody why we can't motivate and train people.

The Chair: When you left the room, Mr. Szabo, they did make some comments on that.

Maybe you can go back to your answer, when Monsieur Laframboise asked you about the RCMP, on exactly how you saw it, and about the wages. Can you give us a quick synopsis on it? That would be very important for Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I guess the issue, for me, in terms of the leadership roles of the airport authorities, who have, I think, some suggestions worth taking, is that we have to stop being in denial about what the facts were and what the facts continue to be. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen the pre-screening situation modify itself in terms of the staffing. I've asked about it, and they continue to have the turnover; they continue to have the same standards.

I'm worried that if we haven't responded, if we're in denial, that the reason we have this weakness in turnover and failure to motivate people, etc., is that we haven't paid them properly, that they're carrying two and three jobs, that they have absolutely no prerequisite of any credentials whatsoever to do these important jobs.... And this was acceptable, not only to the security firm but also to the dominant air carrier that hired them and to other stakeholders, including the airport authorities, yet you still didn't mention it.

• 1045

Mr. Paul Benoit: Mr. Szabo, in many areas I fully agree with you. That's why we're here. That's why we came here with a recommendation on how to change it. We agree fully that you cannot pay people subsistence wages. I mean, $7 an hour is less than $18,000 a year. Not too many people are going to live on that.

So we fully agree with you, which is why we said to Mr. Moore's question that we would see their salaries coming in the same general range as private security guards, such as the corps of commissionaires. I agree fully when you talk about the turnover. Indeed, at many airports, because of the massive turnover, there are very few, if any, increases over the pre-September 11 numbers of guards at the airports.

I would disagree with you, however, when you say there has been no change in terms of what is being processed here. Security has become much more difficult. It has become much more lengthy. The process is much stronger than it ever was. I don't disagree with a word you said regarding the educational level, the second or third job, the part-time jobs, and how it has been treated in the past. That is why airports are here today not trying to create an empire but trying to fix something that is, for a not-for-profit organization, extremely important.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. Let me just finish off on this thing. There's no question that it takes longer to get through, but what they are doing has not changed. They are still just going to look in your bag. A trained security specialist will look you in the eye and speak to you. They will ask you a question. They will look at body language. They will be able to interpret that. These people don't have the skills or the training to do that, and nobody has initiated it.

So I raise it with you that it's not enough to do more of what you're already doing; it's to do a better job, a more professional job, at the security end.

Mr. Neil Raynor: I totally agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. And I want to specifically say that the airports of Canada are not in denial. We believe that in the new situation, the new environment, we have to do something. We've proposed a change to the current arrangements, because we need to address exactly those issues that you've just raised. You have to motivate people. Part of that is paying them, but that's only part of it. You have to motivate them, you have to keep them, you have to train them, you have to update them, and you have to give them the equipment.

Just on that point, as to what changes have been made and are being made, the federal government, of course, has announced that it's spending about $70 million-plus on buying new equipment to change the way that people are screened. There's going to be new equipment coming in. It won't be just the same old security clearance as you walk through; there'll actually be new tests coming in as soon as that equipment is received. I can't tell you exactly when that will happen—that's a question for Transport Canada—but I know it's going to happen in the next couple of months.

Mr. Paul Szabo: A final theme has to do with the role of the airlines in this security loop. Obviously, at a time when the airline industry is under some duress, attracting and keeping passengers is a matter of survival. Historically, I think the impression is that when you go to purchase a ticket or check in your bags, you're treated as a customer, and a valued customer, but there doesn't seem to me to be much security attention at that point. Rather, it's “How do I make this as painless as possible for you to get through this line?”

Similarly, at the boarding gate, where they have other direct responsibility, now we're looking at photo ID. It doesn't take a lot of training to do that part of it, but I don't detect a lot of other security-type things going on there.

Given that the airlines certainly would like to relieve themselves of the cost of hiring the screening people, and relieve themselves of other responsibilities—it reduces their overall costs, which may be passed on to them by the airport authority anyway—they still have an aircraft, and they still have staff, and they still have responsibilities. How do we make sure they are still on the hook, as it were, to be responsible airlines in terms of coordinating their efforts with you, under somebody else's command?

The Chair: You have one minute to answer.

Mr. Paul Benoit: First of all, there's an effort being undertaken between the airlines and the government regarding the coordination of reservation systems and passenger names with police systems. There's a whole issue there in terms of privacy acts, which is being addressed by the airlines. With respect, then, I think it's a question you should probably be directing more to the airlines as to where they're going with it.

• 1050

We're here today to say that in terms of the security, pre-screening, there are things that need to be changed within our domain. It's always easy for somebody to point to the airlines or to somebody else and say they should do this, that, and the other thing. Today you have an organization coming forward and saying, look, we're prepared to take it on. We don't want to create an empire. I don't necessarily want to be on the hook for more responsibility in terms of my airport certificate, but it has to be done if this industry is going to be fixed.

Regarding measures specifically having to do with the airlines, with respect, I think it's a question that should probably be directed to the carriers.

The Chair: Val.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having heard your responses and your opening statements, I guess it's quite clear that it really is managing a risk. In order to manage a risk, you have to assess what that risk is. Would you say it's fair to comment that probably 99% of the travelling public doesn't pose any risk?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Absolutely.

Ms. Val Meredith: Would you then agree that the question is, how do you allow that 99% to access the airports, access the planes, and move without a great degree of restraint and time, and also manage that 1% risk?

Mr. Paul Benoit: First of all, that 1% is like the story of the bad apple that can spoil the whole barrel. We are all in a situation where we are going to have to do things differently. I think Canada and North America have been, for lack of a better word, somewhat lucky; perhaps insulated is a better word. For the last forty years in Britain and Europe, terrorism has been a constant threat, as it has been in the Middle East and Asia. Probably only in North America have we had this system in place. Prior to September 11, I would have said that half of the people who were in fact known then to be terrorists were landed immigrants in the States, had U.S. visas, had been cleared, and I would have said they might have been in that 99%.

The problem with your question, Ms. Meredith, is that you don't know who the 1% is. So in order to ensure the safety and security of everybody on there, we all have to go through the same measures.

On Friday I was at the airport, wandering around, and the Minister of Transport was going through. I don't think the security guard knew the Minister of Transport from anybody else. They went through his bag with a fine-tooth comb. Now, if there is anybody who would be a security-safe person...but it is not, as we say in French, deux poids, deux mesures. It's the same thing for everybody as we go forward.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'm not arguing that point. What I'm suggesting is that you have an airport now where I think the degree of security has increased. I've travelled in three or four different airports over the last couple of weeks, and I've noticed that it seems to be very efficient. I disagree with Mr. Szabo, because I've been asked for ID while checking in, going through the security screening, and getting on the plane. I think they're trying their best, and I think they're doing a good job of it. But I am concerned...and I would suggest that what you've put before us is that you feel that airport authorities should take over the job, the jurisdiction, the responsibility of airport security.

Mr. Neil Raynor: In its totality.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay.

Who pays for it? That's the question that's on the table. You're suggesting that because terrorism and that kind of threat is to the state, it's the federal government who should be giving you the money in order to provide the security at the airports. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I do want to ask you, to whom are you accountable then? My understanding is that you're accountable to a board of directors. Is that board of directors then accountable to the government for security? Is the airport management accountable to the government for security? How does that accountability factor play into this?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Probably the two words that members of Parliament hear more than anything else are “give me”. We're not looking for a “give me”, and we're not looking for a blank cheque, as I said earlier. We're not looking for a bailout. That's not the issue. We are accountable, on matters of security, to the federal government. The federal government, when they devolved airports—this was under the Conservatives initially and under the Liberals subsequently—were very astute in ensuring that while the operation was devolved to private entities with boards of directors made up of local people, the regulations and the legislation did not change.

• 1055

So while I have a board of directors I am accountable to in terms of the business of my operation, I am accountable not to my board of directors for security but to the federal government. The federal government has ensured that it keeps those standards.

To Mr. Laframboise's point, whether that is Transport Canada or the RCMP, that is for the federal government to decide.

I say again that since September 11, the costs of every single measure in place today at the airports, under directives that have been made by the federal government, virtually doubling the costs, have been borne by the local companies. Anti-terrorism directives coming from the government that tell us we must have, say, triple the police in certain areas, or must add police in the U.S. pre-clearance areas—at what point is it fair to say these should not be borne by the federal government?

I think that's a question for you people to decide, because at the end of the day, the costs, which probably will be double in 2002 what they were in 2001.... And those costs have been shared with the government, and I have to say, the government has been extremely responsive in terms of looking at that and working with us on this. I don't know where it's going to go, but somebody has to pay the bill down the road. We do have a tendency at airports to pass the bill on to the user, who happens to be either the passenger or the airline.

So the government can continue to take $250 million from us in the rent we're paying, plus the security services downloaded to us, without our wish, in 1996, but today the cost is going to be paid. We have not billed back to one airline the costs since September 11. We're trying to absorb what we can.

Ms. Val Meredith: My understanding from a previous witness was that the equipment that goes into airports for the screening is actually done by a not-for-profit company that the airlines control.

Mr. Paul Benoit: That's correct.

Ms. Val Meredith: But you've made the statement that you've put in—I forget the exact number—about $70 million of new equipment.

Mr. Paul Benoit: I don't think that was me. I believe that was Mr. Raynor's statement in terms of the $70 million.

Mr. Neil Raynor: That's the federal government, yes, for the new equipment that's coming in right now.

Ms. Val Meredith: So the new equipment hasn't been put in by you; it's being put in by the government through this not-for-profit organization.

Mr. Neil Raynor: Yes.

Ms. Val Meredith: So what we're talking about is the fact that the federal government already puts money into the equipment but not into the staffing of equipment and not into the supervising of the staffing of the equipment.

Mr. Neil Raynor: You were right in that the equipment for the pre-board screening is owned by a company called the Air Transport Security Corporation. It is controlled completely by ATAC and the airlines. It is a creature, or child, of ATAC. They were handed all the equipment by the federal government; it was transferred.

Ms. Val Meredith: So what you are saying is that you would want to take over only the people side, not providing equipment; only the management and hiring practices and the training of the people.

Mr. Neil Raynor: That's correct.

Mr. Paul Benoit: It may be useful to understand who all the players are in the pre-board screening. The airport's role today is limited to giving floor space. That's it. We give free floor space to put the machines in the security checkpoints. That's the airport's role.

The airline's role is to subcontract to private security companies the personnel to work that. So you now have two players.

You have a third player, the Air Transport Security Corporation, which purchases and manages the equipment, apart from the $70 million that's coming from the federal government. So that's your third player.

You have a fourth player, which is Nav Canada, who comes in and calibrates and maintains the equipment.

Then you have a fifth player.

By the way, you can imagine how this system is awkward, and why we're trying to say we need to streamline it.

The fifth player is now the regulator, the federal government, who then comes in and tries to coordinate this jumble.

We're talking about command and control systems to make it as streamlined as possible. Leave the ATSC people with their equipment role. If they want to subcontract to Nav Can in terms of maintaining it, that's their issue, but put the security bodies, the employees, under the existing airport contracts for police and security that are there. And that has worked for the last five years.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, I have just one question that hasn't been covered, and that's foreigners coming into Canada through any of our airports.

We have no control over what AeroMexico does, from a security point of view, in Mexico. Those people may land at a Canadian airport. What secure measures are there for those individuals coming from somewhere else, where we have no control over the security, into our airports?

• 1100

Mr. Paul Benoit: Again, I think you're getting into an area that is probably better directed towards Transport Canada, but I'll give you the novice's answer. Most, if not all, countries have reciprocal agreements regarding security—for example, Canada and the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and so on and so forth. Planes that are not security-screened are not accepted in the sterile areas of the terminal. Now, the mechanisms as to how that works is between governments, and it would not be for us to say. The second line of defence in that area is Canada Customs and Immigration, who do their thing.

Ms. Val Meredith: But you're saying that you have enough unsecured aircraft coming in.... As the airport, you're saying Nav Canada is the one responsible for—

Mr. Paul Benoit: No, we will not allow a non-cleared aircraft to mix with cleared, or what we call “sterile”, operations. If you're coming into the Ottawa or whatever terminal, you could not deplane those passengers with those who have already gone through security.

Ms. Val Meredith: But the plane could come in somewhere in that secured airport perimeter and park over in that, so the plane is in essence there.

Mr. Paul Benoit: That's correct.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: We're out of time, and our next guests are tight for time, but I still have Bev and Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Shepherd, two minutes, very quickly, and Bev, two minutes. That's the end, because our next guests have very rigid time restraints.

Alex.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Just getting back to a comment you made on two or three different occasions, on what you get for the $250 million in rent, I presume you get an airport.

Mr. Paul Benoit: We're building a new one to replace the old one.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But the reality is that the people of Canada built that airport.

Mr. Paul Benoit: And had it fully amortized.

That debate is perhaps for a different committee. However, just as an example, today the net book value of the Ottawa airport is about $65 million. Our rent this year is going from $8 million to $12 million next year. At times, things are difficult, and we are addressing that with Transport Canada. The government is looking at it. We're not sure where it's going to go.

I think the rent has to be put into proportion, because at the end of the day, when you are charged rent, you then charge it back to the airlines, who then come and see you, looking for a bailout. So it's a vicious circle we're in as we go forward.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: The other issue there, too, is that terrorism is an act against the state. I understand that. But the commonality here seems to be that if they like to attack buildings where there are high concentrations of people, the argument can also be put that perhaps we also should be somehow taking care of the construction industry, because they have a significant liability out there for terrorist attacks. I don't know; where's the end of that argument?

I come from a riding where I dare say less than half the people have ever taken an airplane. Why are they going to be made responsible for these costs?

Mr. Paul Benoit: Because some of those people are probably being laid off today as a result of airplanes that flew into buildings in another country and as a result of the way the economy is turning. Aviation isn't just related to John Manley's riding in Ottawa. It's related to you. It's related to the country. It's part of our infrastructure. It's part of our getting goods to the world.

In your riding, wherever it may be, if there is no service so that we can get your goods to the world, we're all going to suffer down the road. I think we all have a stake in it.

I come back to my initial comments: State-directed terrorism should be borne by whom? Should it not be borne by the state? That is something for you people to deliberate. If it's not, that's fine, but then the cost of the measures the government is imposing on us right now will then be borne by the industry, and the industry is going to come and see you and say, look, we need more money.

We are looking next year at doubling the cost of security in Canadian airports as a result of federally mandated and needed—and I stress “needed”—changes. But somebody has to pay for it. We are not-for-profit organizations. We don't have shareholders. I'm not there trying to make money for my shareholders. I'm trying to make my community—

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd, I think he answered that question pretty well.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I just think maybe you're going to need a transitional period to adjust, but the ultimate person who would pay would be the travelling public.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, a quick question, please.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Just as a bit of a preamble, my perspective on it is that when you have that many people going into an airport and then going up in the sky, just because they're up in the sky it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same security as the people on the ground in Canada. Certainly from my perspective I do believe there is a federal responsibility. I don't think we should say to heck with those people just because they've gone up in an airplane. I think there is a real federal responsibility for security.

• 1105

Over the last couple of years there has been criticism of airport authorities in terms of their spending and what is sometimes perceived as lavish changes to airports, the costs of which then get tacked onto what consumers have to pay. Although they operate as not-for-profits, and they pay the leasing fees, some airport authorities, I believe, become involved in outside business interests that aren't subject to the scrutiny of federal auditors.

So there is question that there is some profit to be made, not necessarily under the airport authorities but under a subsidiary company. There is concern, from my perspective, that if the airport authorities were to take over the control of security, they still might be in the situation of trying to keep their costs down simply so that they'd have more money to operate some of these other interests they're involved in.

Mr. Paul Benoit: I think under the Canada Airports Act, which is a review that is being done by the federal government—we're expecting to see a draft of that shortly, given the events—the questions you have raised, which I think in some cases are valid, are being addressed. I think if an airport is doing business outside of its core activity, it should not be tax-exempt but should be completely taxable. I think you'll see things like that addressed in the Canada Airports Act review that is coming forward.

At the end of the day, when people, or a certain constituency, mention that airports have gone out and built Taj Mahals, I'd like to see one. I haven't seen one. I'd like somebody to tell me which airport has gone out and built a Taj Mahal, because I've heard they're out there.

Are we trying to make up for possibly five to ten years of zero investment in airports? Yes. Do we work with airlines on what they are doing and what we are doing? Yes. But as for people going out and circulating that they're building Taj Mahals, well, airports have been devolved for almost nine years now, and I would like you to show me one—anywhere.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think the building was part of it; the other thing was investment in expensive art, say, to hang on a wall. A variety of different situations have come up. Quite frankly, I'm not personally aware of them, but it has been a concern I've heard about while sitting on the transport committee over the last couple of years.

Mr. Neil Raynor: There is a certain constituency who would make those...for their own particular interests, but I don't think there is any evidence of that, as an industry.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. You've been very helpful.

Do you have a quick question, Mario?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It's not a question but a point of order. It has nothing to do with the witnesses. It's in relation to Bill C-34.

Last week, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Does this involve the witnesses?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: No.

The Chair: All right.

You guys are excused. Thank you very much. You were very helpful.

I'm sorry, Mario; go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Last week, Mr. Chairman, on October 23, during clause-by-clause study of Bill C-34, I was informed that witnesses asked the Secretariat to be heard that morning. I can name them. They were from the Shipping Federation of Canada. We decided to proceed to clause-by-clause study of the bill, which was not even on our agenda. I was given to understand that there was no problem doing it and that everything was fine.

I want to know the facts, Mr. Chairman. I want to know why this decision was made and why we were not informed of the fact that witnesses, some of which were from the Shipping Federation of Canada, wished to be heard on Bill C-34.

[English]

The Chair: I'll get the clerk to explain.

Paul.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: The name of this organization was on the list of witnesses distributed to all members of the committee at the beginning of the meeting, so they would know that some organizations were interested in being heard on Bill C-34.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: But you didn't say that these people asked once more to be heard that morning.

It's all right. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I think what happened also, Mario, is that you asked some of the witnesses about objections, and maybe they didn't indicate at that time. We have to be a little more cautious about that next time.

We'll now go in camera with our next set of witnesses.

[Proceedings continue in camera]