TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 28, 2001

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think I see a quorum and I'd like to start the meeting.

We're a little late starting. I'd like our guests to introduce themselves and then give us short briefs on what they're here to talk to us about. Then we'll open it up to a round of questions.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty (National Director, United Steelworkers of America): I'm Lawrence McBrearty, your national director for the steelworkers.

Mr. Roger Falconer (Department Head, Education, United Steelworkers of America): I'm Roger Falconer. I work in the education department of the national office.

Mr. Rob Limongelli (Division Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)): I'm Rob Limongelli, the secretary-treasurer of the UI division of CUPE.

Mr. Richard Balnis (Researcher Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)): My name is Richard Balnis from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Mr. Jim Cherry (President, Aéroports de Montréal): My name is Jim Cherry. I'm the president of the Aéroports de Montréal.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand (Director of Airport Protection, Aéroports de Montréal): My name is Pierre-Paul Pharand and I'm the director of operations for the airport.

The Chair: Okay. So each group can give us a short brief, and then we'll go to questions.

Thank you.

Mr. Jim Cherry : Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Good morning and thank you for inviting us to appear before you today.

Let me introduce our group. My name is Jim Cherry and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aéroports de Montréal. Accompanying me this afternoon is Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand who is Director of Airport Operations.

I will make a short presentation and then Mr. Pharand and I will respond to any questions that you may have in either official language.

[English]

Aéroports de Montréal is a non-profit organization, mandated by a 60-year lease signed with Transport Canada. Since August 1, 1992, Aéroports de Montréal has served as the local airport administration body that oversees the management, operation, and development of the Dorval and Mirabel International Airports.

Dorval offers carriers and passengers full transfer services for all types of regular flights, whereas Mirabel targets cargo flights and charters for vacationers.

Over 22,000 people are employed at our airports. We serve close to 10 million passengers annually and handle in excess of 248,000 flights each year.

Now that you know a little bit about us, who we are, and what services we provide, I'd like to turn to the issue of airport security and the few measures we believe will need to be instituted to improve this aspect of the air transport system.

Ensuring that people can travel securely and efficiently is essential to Canada's economic and social well-being. In the aftermath of the events of September 11, Canadians are looking for government and industry to ensure the air transportation system is safe and secure.

Aéroports de Montréal believes that the best method to realize these improvements is through public and private entities involved in aviation and public safety.

[Translation]

Since 1992, the situation in aviation security has changed and ADM has been at the forefront of helping to improve security. As a result, we have been called upon to assume a greater role. Our major initiatives have included: the establishment of a well- trained and equipped airport law enforcement and security department; the pursuit of a professional accreditation for this department called CALEA, an accreditation program similar to an ISO program; the acquisition of state-of-the-art technology to assist in the protection of our airport assets; the establishment of a close partnership with other law enforcement and security agencies; and participation in a number of professional and governmental committees for the advancement and improvement of aviation security.

• 1540

[English]

Our present security regime is effective, but it does require some improvement. Law enforcement, protection of restricted areas, emergency response to incidents, and liaison with all partners are currently the obligations of the airport authority. The only aspect of ground security that is not the responsibility of the airport authority is pre-board passenger and baggage screening, which the air carriers handle.

We are advocating, along with the Canadian Airports Council, the integration of all security aspects under the control of airport authorities. Further, a new not-for-profit joint government-industry entity would be created that would assume responsibility for the provision, deployment, and maintenance of security systems, as well as the development of security training policies. Provision of screening services at smaller airports would also be included. ADM firmly believes that pre-board and baggage screening should become an integrated part of overall security arrangements at our airports.

Under this new and improved system, staff would be better trained and have greater variety in their tasks while on duty. We have been advocating for a number of years that our government change current legislation to empower our security staff to effectively secure restricted areas, improve the information sharing between the airports, and provide airport authorities with enhanced tools to protect passengers.

I understand that some of these powers may be granted under Bill C-42, introduced last week by the Minister of Transport. We recognize and applaud these efforts.

[Translation]

Of course, these changes will require some additional costs. Both the consumer and the Government of Canada should absorb the cost for changes in aviation security. We think that airport users would not oppose an additional fee for increased security. Such a fee would be levied upon the airport users and would allow airport authorities to effectively increase the level of security on site. The additional costs related to the new not-for-profit national entity would have to be borne by the Canadian government. We believe it is reasonable as it is part of our national security.

[English]

We are ready and willing to work with the airport community and the federal government to improve security to make our system one that ranks among the best in the world. We want to ensure that our airport is ready to confront any type of threat.

These improvements can be achieved. As a result of our existing security arrangement, Canada does not have to undertake the dramatic changes to airport security we have witnessed in the United States. We have good airport protective measures and associated national standards. In addition, Transport Canada is more closely involved in the day-to-day oversight of security operations than the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States.

To recap, ADM is asking the federal government to make improvements to airport security in the following three ways: allow for the integration of pre-board passenger and baggage screening into the existing airport security regime; partner with the industry to create a new not-for-profit entity; and amend legislation to provide airport authorities with enhanced tools to protect passengers.

We believe that taking on these activities is a logical and sensible progression that will provide a more efficient and secure service to air travellers.

We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Can we go to the next group, please?

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I'm the national director from the steelworkers union. Our union represents the general workers, over 180,000 members in Canada. Out of those 180,000 members, over 25,000 are officers that provide security at airports, public buildings, and private businesses. Over 800 of our members provide passenger and baggage screening service at several airports across Canada.

[Translation]

The union's security officer membership far exceeds the number of employees of any one private security firm in Canada. It means the United Steelworkers is in fact the largest single entity in the security industry. Our knowledge and depth of experience within the industry as its largest single player means the United Steelworkers is uniquely positioned to offer improvements in the delivery of security services to Canadians.

• 1545

[English]

Steelworker-represented officers have always carried out their orders in the airports, to the limit of the training and rules established by Transport Canada. Yet there have been unfounded and unfair suggestions in the media that security officers at airports have been failing to carry out their duties.

If anything, steelworker security officers have been working even harder since September 11 because of the demand for closer scrutiny of passengers and luggage at the airports, while maintaining a rate of screening that does not bring the airport to a standstill. The irony of this is that their jobs have been threatened.

There is no reason and no evidence to suggest that the security officers currently assigned to airport security should not continue to carry out those assignments. On the contrary, an across-the-board replacement of those security officers would result in a very real risk of destabilizing the airport system.

[Translation]

Security should mean stability, which in turn impacts on public confidence. That means security officers assigned to airports should NOT be replaced. The United Steelworkers believes the review of airport security should more properly be focused on regulation, training and licensing, and not simply on whether provision is public or private. Now is not the time to destabilize the industry; rather it is time to ensure that service providers be properly and effectively regulated, and that security officers receive adequate training and remuneration.

[English]

Security is an issue for all citizens, whether they are on airplanes, working in offices, or even shopping in a mall. That is why our union responded with a policy statement on necessary legislative reform to the regulations of the security industry in Canada, including security at airports.

Our policy statement focuses on three needs: a new and better training regime and comprehensive licensing regime; a tripartite industrial council of security firms, government, and the bargaining agent of security officers; and rationalized and centralized terms and conditions of employment.

If there is a move toward the creation of an independent agency, along the lines of Nav Canada, to provide airport security, the steelworkers believe a new agency must include the following priorities: it must ensure continuity of experienced personnel, job security and labour relations stability, and improved effectiveness of services.

[Translation]

Any new agency should be required to continue existing arrangements with private security firms in the short run or at least until the agency determines whether to continue those arrangements or to pursue alternatives. To do otherwise would be to lose the knowledge and experience of the security officers who have been providing security at their respective airports for, in many cases, years.

The full-scale hiring of hundreds of new personnel in a hurry would itself pose security risks. Retaining current personnel would not prevent the new agency from directing those private security firms to implement new training requirements or new screening techniques.

[English]

Ensuring the continuity of personnel will require legislation to enable work security and stable labour relations. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that both the new agency and any outside security firms hired by the new agency are required to continue or improve the terms and conditions under which security officers are currently assigned to airports. Any legislation creating a new agency to administer airport security must include successor rights provisions. Doing so would not conflict with any other existing legislation.

[Translation]

Any decision by any new agency ultimately must be implemented by the security officers assigned to carry out the work. It must be re-stated that security officers require legislation to ensure nationwide standards for training, licensing and consistent terms and conditions of employment.

• 1550

We urge all members of the committee to carefully review the attached policy/position put forward by the United Steelworkers on behalf of all its members in the security industry in Canada.

[English]

If you have any questions we'll be available to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're going to hear now from CUPE, please.

Mr. Rob Limongelli: Good afternoon.

I'm the secretary-treasurer of the airline division of CUPE. With me today is Richard Balnis, with CUPE's research. We will be sharing our presentation to you.

First of all, let me thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, as you conduct your review of the current state of airline safety and security in Canada.

The airline division of CUPE represents 11,500 active and laid-off cabin personnel throughout Canada's airline industry. That includes Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canada 3000, Cathay Pacific in Vancouver, and First Air.

We've distributed to you, in English and French, our 54-point agenda for improved airport and airline security. We developed this agenda quite quickly after the tragic events of September 11.

This agenda was born out of two desires. First is to correct the deficiencies we saw in the security system that existed prior to September 11, based on our criticisms dating back to 1990 that have been ignored by government. Second is to raise the security bar as a result of the events of September 11.

Our agenda has two principal aims. First is to restore passenger confidence so passengers will feel safe and return to flying in the post-September 11 world. This is necessary if our battered airline industry is to survive. Second is to protect our members. On September 11, 25 U.S. flight attendants lost their lives at work. Some had their hands bound and others had their throats cut before the crashes. The events of September 11 have had a powerful impact on our members.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government did not want to listen to or involve airline workers or their unions in the review and development of new security measures immediately after September 11. Air operators and airports were actively involved, but not us, even though we are the first victims when the security system fails.

We were not involved in the development of the 400-series of the security measures. We were reluctantly given a copy of the first 500-series, but only after implemented, and we've been given nothing since.

We pressured to be involved, however, and eventually Assistant Deputy Minister Bill Elliott created the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, ASAC. ASAC met for the first time on November 14, and its two working groups are to report back by March 1, 2002. All our issues have gone to these working groups.

Now we've learned that some decisions have already been made for the December 10 federal budget, for example, on airport screening. So even your committee report may be too late to have an impact.

What is our agenda?

Mr. Richard Balnis: I would like to just describe what's in our 54-point agenda.

Some of the elements you will see in that document are already being done now, such as asking security questions about the checked baggage—the three questions you always hear asked by the agent receiving your bag.

Some are modifications of what is done now. One example is the definition of a weapon. Before September 11 you were allowed to carry 10-centimetre knives on-board aircraft. After September 11 that stopped. But our proposal is slightly different from what Transport Canada is proposing.

A third set of recommendations are what we call minor new elements. Examples are: no sale of weapons behind the security wall; checking of caterers; and screening of all sterile-area personnel.

A fourth area of proposals includes major new policy initiatives dealing with air marshals and who provides security screening.

Of all these proposals, some can be done quite easily by the Minister of Transport within existing legislative and regulatory authorities. For example, the definition of weapon can be easily changed. There can be better flight attendant training.

However, others may require new authorities, and will most definitely require decisive policy changes, some of which are not found in the new Bill C-42. In our view—something I guess we'll come to talk to you about one day—Bill C-42 is silent on most of our major concerns.

Some of the ideas, as you flip through the ten pages of documents, you've already heard from other organizations. Other elements are contained in the new U.S. law signed by President George Bush on November 19. But what is unique is the flight attendants' perspective.

• 1555

I'd like to highlight two central aspects of our agenda to you.

We agree with many of the other organizations and unions that have appeared before you that the first effort must be on the ground to prevent problems reaching the aircraft, where it is already too late. Our primary change can be found on page 2 of our document, and it's exactly the same reference in English and French—page 2, subparagraph 1(a)(i) and (ii)—and that is for the federal government to take over financing and operation of airport security screening under the Department of Justice.

In this regard, we agree with Mike Wing and the Union of Canadian Transport Employees in his testimony before you on November 1 that having airlines contract out security screening to the lowest bidder is not the correct solution. Even the minister at times seems to agree with this assessment. On CTV News on November 18 he said the airline responsibility for the delivery of security services at the airports is no longer applicable.

We believe our proposal has the following advantages over a number of other alternatives under consideration—either that the airports take it over or that there be some sort of Nav Canada equivalent.

The advantages of our proposal are five. First, a Department of Justice agency will ensure that airport screening is plugged in directly to the government's security intelligence resources in a timely and effective manner. Second, security screeners will be accredited peace officers. Third, there will be no conflict between providing adequate security screening services and cutting costs by contracting out to the lowest bidder. Fourth, there will be no real or perceived conflict of interest between Transport Canada, as regulator of the security screening system, and the actual delivery of the security screening services. Finally, and most importantly, there will be consistent delivery and implementation of national security standards.

If this front line of defence is breached and the problem does reach the aircraft, we must improve our defensive abilities there. We support the locked cockpit door. We understand that if the pilots are disabled, the plane crashes. But we now face serious consequences as a result of the removal of the pilots from the security equation on board the aircraft. In fact, flight attendants are now alone in the cabin with the passengers. Accordingly, on page 8 paragraph 2(i), we are calling for armed federal air marshals with non-lethal weaponry on all flights. We are also looking for better threat information and security briefings. Then finally, on page 10, we are calling for new training for flight attendants, including personal protection training for flight attendants.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our agenda. We are open to your questions as you see fit.

The Chair: We'll start with James Moore, the critic from the official opposition.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I'll start with the last witness first.

I've looked over all the things you've asked for in your report. It's very thorough, and to be quite frank, a lot of them I agree with. But there's no outline or provision here on how you pay for all that stuff. How would you propose to pay for all that?

Mr. Richard Balnis: Sorry, it's on the first page at the bottom under the last bullet. You can read it there. It's that large paragraph that begins “Some of CUPE's proposals will not necessitate extra costs.” We are open to any suggestions—whether it comes from federal government revenues or follows the U.S. example of a passenger tax. We don't have a hard and fast position, but we think there are two sources there.

Depending on the constraints on the budget, the ability to use a passenger tax will allow us to move to the system more quickly, rather than waiting for the budget. So we're open, and it's there on page 1.

Mr. James Moore: One of the debates they had in the U.S. when they had the implementation of their bill was a real debate where people said, we want to have the accountability of being able to fire people who aren't doing their jobs adequately, if they fail the security screening. On the other hand, we do want a greater accountability by taking it out of the hands of the private carriers.

Would CUPE be willing to submit to the current standards that allow for the easy firing of people who are currently screeners who may not be doing their jobs?

Mr. Richard Balnis: It's easy for me to say, just to answer your question, that CUPE would not represent those workers. So I don't want to comment for some other union. But in the public sector and in the private sector the standards for dismissal are relatively close. If you're not doing your job, there are procedures to follow. There are many assumptions that the public sector can do things poorly and get away with it. That's not been our experience in our public sector.

• 1600

In terms of whether it would be UCTE or someone else, or perhaps the justice component of the Alliance representing these workers, they can comment a little better on the ease of their clauses. We would not represent those workers in any event.

Mr. James Moore: My question is for Mr. Cherry. How would you finance the putting of airport security into the hands of airport authorities and/or a Nav Canada-type body?

Mr. Jim Cherry: From our position it's clear that, regardless of what the ultimate funding agency is, passengers are ready to pay for enhanced security, whether it's financed through a security tax of some sort that gets added to a ticket or a combination of that and public funding. I think people in the travelling public would be willing to make some sort of a sacrifice—pay the extra money necessary to have that extra security.

Mr. James Moore: I'll go back to Mr. Balnis again.

In section 2, “On the Aircraft: Improving Our Abilities to Deal with Onboard Security Situations”, you say “Use of armed air marshals on all flights. The weapons that could be used by these carefully trained personnel must be non-lethal.” Why?

Mr. Richard Balnis: Rob can comment on this. We have started a series of meetings with our members across the country. At the very first meeting people said we need protection in the back of the cabin now; we're alone. But other people are concerned. A flight attendant with 37 years of service said, “We have one risk; are we now introducing another risk?” The fear is that you could have innocent people shot. The non-lethal is our way to deal with that. It's also important that it not be destructive to the aircraft. I know you've heard evidence that certain weapons will not damage the aircraft. We're very much concerned that it will become a situation where innocent bystanders will be affected in that situation.

We also believe that a professional sky marshal armed in a non-lethal or less than lethal way, depending on the wording you use, will be an adequate resource for us to deal with the cabin. And that armed marshal should be directed not to deal with unruly passengers but to protect the cockpit—that's their job. That's the sense we have from El Al. Their job is to make sure the cockpit is protected, and flight attendants with additional training should be able to deal with the other problems. They are there to deal with the problem that came around on September 11.

The question of “why all flights” is because we've still been getting conflicting reports on whether a particular Air Canada flight on a relatively short Toronto-New York flight may have been targeted September 11. So we're not just focusing, as the U.S. is, on international long-haul flights, but we are looking at most other flights, because we are very close to the U.S. centre of the universe.

Mr. James Moore: Well, the U.S. isn't just doing international long-haul; they're also doing domestic.

You said the use of armed federal air marshals on all flights. So that isn't true. You can't afford to put an air marshal on every single flight going from Williams Lake to Peace River. Isn't that right?

Mr. Richard Balnis: I think we're looking at our operations, which would be Canadian Aviation Regulations 705 operations—20 seats or more. So I guess it would be wrong to say we want it on a two-person, general aviation Cessna. You're correct that we would be looking at those aircraft where our members are, and those are commercial aircraft in excess of 20 seats, regulated under CARS 705.

Mr. James Moore: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Balnis, I was intrigued with your comment right now. I think we've forgotten at times in our rush to deal with this that it's flight attendants and cabin crew who are most at risk. They die in these circumstances. One of the questions has been this desire to sever the delivery of the services from the airlines. I'm wondering if that doesn't have a bit of a double-edged impact to it.

To what extent are attendants and cabin crews involved in the development of the regulations and the policy?

Mr. Richard Balnis: On the safety side there is something called—and I think you've heard this before—CARAC, the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council. There is a variety of bodies there that deal, and we are actively involved in all those areas.

The security side is a little more mysterious. They tend to consult, but only when they want to. We had a hassle—and politely I can only use the word “hassle”—where they simply refused to give us the security measures, even after they were published, for us to know them. We were not involved in any consultation on the 400-series of security measures. We only saw the 500-series after the fact. We now understand there are supplemental letters that have been issued. We have not been privy to that.

• 1605

“Its Unauthorized Disclosure is Prohibited” is what it says right across the top. So it's important for an air operator or an airport that needs to implement to know what's going on. And we would make the argument that, as Rob said, sometimes we are the first victims. We can offer some experiences.

Under the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, chaired by Mr. Elliott, they are trying to work through that and allow us to have greater input.

Quite frankly, that process only started on November 14, almost two months afterwards. Meanwhile, Secretary Minetta in the U.S. had two rapid-response teams already file reports. He has created a host of working groups that have almost completed their work before we even sit down to the table to identify the issues in Canada.

So on the security side, no, we've not been consulted on the safety side. Yes, there's a much more routinized way of consultation, and we are actively involved there.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I was just trying to check your structural issue here with our very capable researcher. This is an extraordinary circumstance right now, but in the formal structures for looking at the policy that guides this, you're saying there's no formal mechanism for flight attendants and the like to be consulted on an ongoing basis in the development of that.

Mr. Richard Balnis: Since November 14, Assistant Deputy Minister Elliott has taken it upon himself to create that formal structure. There are two working groups, one dealing with aircraft issues and another one with airports. So that process has started, and there are meetings of these two working groups on December 6, 7, and 10. There is now a much more formal consultative mechanism developed, thanks to Mr. Elliott and his staff.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I tend to agree with the gentleman who was making the comment about some of the things that have been said about security staff since the incident took place. It can't be the most fun to be doing that kind of work all day long. I think they deserve far more support than they get at times. It's been a tough few months. I think they've done a superb job, frankly.

The Chair: Well done.

All right, we'll go to Mario.

[Translation]

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

My first question is addressed to Mr. Cherry. I want to understand this. You have come up with a new vision of security. On September 11, in Mirabel among other places, ADM had announced a press conference that never took place, for all kinds of reasons. The news wires said that there would be a press conference. Was it cancelled?

Mr. Jim Cherry: No. We should note that on September 11, we were at an international congress of airport managers in downtown Montreal. In fact, we held a press conference at the Palais des congrès. We decided to hold the press conference, but at first, we did not know exactly where it would be. In fact, it took place on the morning of September 11 at the Palais des congrès. On that morning, 2,200 managers of all airports in the world met in Montreal. Thus, the press conference took place at the Palais des congrès and not at Mirabel.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: When these dire events took place, Transport Canada took charge of security. Am I right?

Mr. Jim Cherry: We received precise directives from Transport Canada. Mr. Pharand, my colleague here, took charge of all of our facilities at Mirabel and Dorval, but under the direction of Transport Canada.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I was told that the directives changed almost every 10 minutes. Mr. Pharand, were there really such changes—?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: At the beginning of the crisis, we began to receive instructions that evolved with time. I wouldn't talk so much about “change”, as about “evolution”.

• 1610

The first directives we received said that air space would be shut down. Then we were told that the planes would land, and that they would not be allowed to leave. There were directives coming in from time to time and they were evolving. At a given point, these directives took on a much more formal nature. Thus, we began to receive documents. During the first hours, things were done verbally, on the telephone.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You are proposing a partnership, which is a new concept. You want to create an airport security service. If another event happened, who would be in charge? Would it still be Transport Canada putting out all kinds of changing directives or would you, with this new airport security service, be able to control what's going on?

Mr. Jim Cherry: First I must say that the issue we are dealing with today does not involve every aspect of the management of security and safety around airports. Currently, pre-board screening and baggage pre-screening are left up to the carriers. All the other aspects of security already fall under the responsibility of the airport network. What we are concerned with today is certainly that very point. What we propose is a watertight system with all its elements integrated and under the governance of some authority. To answer your question directly, I would say that it is chiefly under the control or direction of Transport Canada. This is what our current mandate provides for.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I will question the union representatives later. All we want is for people to feel safer.

Mr. Jim Cherry: Precisely.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: My problem is that you're proposing a not-for-profit entity. The unions seem to support a not-for-profit entity like NAVCAN, but with that no one would be responsible if a real disaster occurred. That is what we need. We need someone who is responsible for security.

If I gave you the example earlier of the press conference, it is because you announced the first press conference, for a host of reasons. People following the events thought that ADM should hold the press conference. In the end, Transport Canada held it, even though you also held one. So there was no one who was immediately responsible. Why? Because you are partially responsible for security over your territory, near the airport; the airlines are responsible for another part of security, and NAVCAN yet another. In the end, all Transport Canada does is issue directives that constantly change. The department sends them out as fast as the fax can transmit them.

What we want and what I hope we will see, is someone responsible for security. I prefer Mr. Balnis' position that some of the employees must fall directly under the Department of Justice, even though I would prefer an entity responsible for crime to be in charge of security and to be able to issue directives, at the government's expense. I understand what you are saying. You want to increase the costs, and the government will have to pay part of the increase. You say that users, or passengers, would be prepared to pay another portion of it, but do not increase the price of airline tickets too much.

We have a problem. Fewer and fewer people want to fly. The government must make people feel safe. I do not have a problem with creating a new body, but in my opinion, it should completely replace Transport Canada. Although Transport Canada did a good job of managing the crisis on a day-by-day basis, its responsibility was to be prepared beforehand.

You are proposing a not-for-profit entity. I would like to hear Mr. Falconer's opinion to see what type of not-for-profit entity he is proposing in his recommendations, an entity that would be made up of representatives from different bodies. You seem to agree with that. You say that there could be an airport security agency like NAVCAN that would be independent and that would be a not-for-profit entity. Mr. McBrearty also seems to agree with that. I find that somewhat worrisome.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I was listening to your questions. Who is responsible for what when a crisis like the one on September 11 occurs? If the Canadian structure stipulates that Transport Canada was responsible, it was Transport Canada that was responsible. If the political structure were to change in the future... We know that decisions were made among countries after September 11. I had perhaps the same concerns as you.

• 1615

Let's talk about airport security. I am talking about the people from the security agencies that handle baggage and passengers. If one company were replaced with another, security would be totally destabilized.

Security does not stop with passengers, and I understand that. I travel every day of the week. It's a question of training, attitude, confidence and structure.

Now, if it were a not-for-profit agency... We want to help out. We want to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. If a not-for-profit agency is responsible for airport security, we do not object to that. As far as security goes, the objective is to have people who have received training on how to guarantee passenger safety. Who will oversee them? It's a question of structure. Who will pay them? If security were just a question of money, perhaps we would not have any.

If security is strictly a question of money, we will stop talking about it. Everyone says there is no money, including the government. So we won't have security. According to recent polls, the majority of Canadian men and women are prepared to pay for services, not only security services but also health care services. We can look at that and talk about it for hours.

There are airline companies, and they should normally make a profit. They will also benefit from the new security being enforced. The question is this: should they have to pay for part of it? Then there is the federal government, and the general public. In other countries, the public pays part of the security costs. I do not think we would be in a state of disarray if the general public also had to contribute. It would not be much of a bother if travellers had to pay an extra $5 for their plane tickets.

The other day, someone also mentioned the provinces. When people travel, it means that there are more consumers travelling. People fly into cities to attend conferences. The provinces will also benefit from the fact that consumers are travelling. Should they also have to pay part of the security costs, I have no idea. I do not have the answer. If I could give you a simple answer, I would say that the federal government should bear all of the costs, but at the end of the day, I will still be the one who is paying. Whether the federal government pays it or I pay it, it comes from the same pocket.

We represent men and women who work in airports in Montreal, Mirabel, Quebec City, Mont-Joli, Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Ottawa, Calgary, Saint-John's, Newfoundland, Gander, Deer Lake, Stephenville, Goose Bay and Wabush. I am accompanied by airport security officers today. People want to work providing security.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mario's out of time. You can come back on the next round.

I'll go over to Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations.

We just got back from Washington and a couple of days of hearings to learn a little more about the background, the raison d'être of the new legislation they passed on the 19th.

• 1620

The security screening certainly is a big change for them. As an indication, they're looking at salary levels changing from in the neighbourhood of $18,000 U.S. up to, say, $35,000 U.S.—virtually double. They're talking about every screener must be a citizen. It is mandatory that you must be a citizen, because your loyalty is unquestioned to the country. They're looking at things like, certainly, the training and the reliance they placed on it.

It's interesting that it's very seriously changing the job.

I would ask any of you who want to answer whether you feel the current complement of screeners we have, who are, because of a number of reasons, very low paid...the educational and experience requirement is not there, and many carry more than one job.... I'm curious whether or not you believe you can take that core of people in that role and transform them into the security team you need to perform that function.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Yes, we can. If you're talking about education level, we have a high level of education in the security guards that would surprise a lot of people. When you're talking about training, that is the key issue. It's a question of training and feeling that people who have been trained have learned.

We're talking about licensing, that they receive a licence. Right now in Ontario it is the security industry, the company, that receives the licence; it is not the employee. In Quebec it is the contrary. The licence is given by the provincial police. There has to be a regime that the employee becomes a trained, licensed security officer.

The needs of the training have to be developed. How do you develop the needs of the training? We're suggesting that we set up a tripartite industrial council—government, industry, union—and we develop what the needs are and we train the people with regard to the needs.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think I have enough of the sense of yes, you can do that.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Sure, you can.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Does anybody else have any comments?

Mr. Jim Cherry: Mr. Szabo, I agree with my colleague to the extent that I think the people can be trained, certainly, to improve considerably. And we have put in place an ISO-type certification. We are part of that and we are certified to that extent already in the Montreal airports.

I look at this a little differently and from perhaps a system's point of view more than just an individual piece in a system's point of view. I look at pre-board screening, which I'm not saying is being badly done today. I think these people work very hard, and they're doing the very best they can with the means they have available. I believe, though, that they would benefit, and the entire system would benefit, if it were looked at as a complete system from A to Z and if it were said, let's make sure that the system is tight, that the system is seamless, and that all the elements are integrated. I think treating pre-board screening and baggage screening outside of the context of the rest of security isn't necessarily the way to go.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Over what timeframe could something like this be fully implemented?

Mr. Jim Cherry: I would defer to my colleague, because we've talked about it in our organization as well.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Locally, in Montreal, I think with what we're contemplating we could turn the system around within 90 days.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's interesting. Although there's some suggestion here that we would use other tools, like caps or something like that, profiling, and perhaps a reference to databases, whatever, I sense there still seems to be among all of you this view that 100% of passengers are going to be treated the same. It doesn't matter who you are we're going to check you one after another, and we're going to go through all the baggage, all the people, that's it. Is that right?

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: It definitely depends on the regulations, but....

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's what you're proposing.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Either we have security or we don't. If we want to have 100% security, if we want to feel that people are secure, and if we want to feel secure ourselves as citizens, we have to show the people working in the airline sector that they'll be going to work tomorrow morning in a secure workplace. The citizens who go into those workplaces, airports and airplanes, must also feel secure. If that means that everybody, every passenger and every employee working in the airline, has to be checked, well, that's what we're talking about.

• 1625

Mr. Paul Szabo: So if you implemented your plans, you would be prepared to guarantee 100% that there will never be a problem.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: No. I never said that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: You can't get a 100% confidence level.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: But people have to feel that they have 100%.

Mr. Paul Szabo: In fact, you'd find it interesting that, as we were told yesterday by more than one U.S. government official, they are planning for failure in their program, as one put it. It's not going to work. They can't get there quickly enough. They can't afford to pay for it. They can't implement it. They can't get things. It just isn't going to happen, and probably within a year there will be new legislation that will probably get it out of transport and put it all under Homeland Security.

They had to put something in. They called it a hodge-podge. It wasn't a well-thought-out strategy. There was a lot of politics going on. There were a lot of conflicts within departments, silos of protectionism, and all kinds of difficulties. But they wanted to get something quick by November 19, in time for Thanksgiving, hoping it would give them a good start on the security issue.

I throw this out to you. I don't think it surprises you. I don't think it should surprise you. What I'm asking you is, can you break out of the old mould, the old thinking, and say, if I were going to have a secure system—when you look at security professionals—don't we have integrated databases so we fly high risk-low risk? Don't we have sampling and this kind of stuff?

Half the machines down there in their explosive-detection systems aren't being used. It's a mess. They're doing 250 bags a day in some airports when the machines should be doing 150 bags an hour. Everything they want to do works ideally, but the whole plan doesn't work. They've even got airline attendants being trained in self-defence, etc. Anything anybody wanted, they threw in there, hoping the public would think they were doing something, but they're planning for failure.

We are not going to plan for failure in Canada. We are not the United States. We are not going to say we're going to improve confidence levels of our passengers by having army people with automatic weapons at every optical site. That's not going to improve the confidence level, I don't think, in Canada. It does in the United States, but we're different. We have to think outside the box a bit here.

So I ask you, and I'll throw it out to any of you again, do you think it's time we looked at real security? This is our job. This is our thing. Let's look at security with no other conflicts, no other political push-pulls, and all this other stuff. We want to do security. We're going to do it at a level where we're going to deal with the problems of monotony of work. We're going to have the ability for people to work up through the system, to go for it. Maybe we'll provide incentives and all this other stuff so they'll be security professionals.

I need to know whether or not you believe we should go right for the ideal, a good, strategic approach to security and safety, as opposed to trying to take what we've got and somehow mould it into something else.

Mr. Jim Cherry: Let me say that I certainly agree with the objective. I agree 100% with the objective you set forth.

In response, I think we're starting from a much further advanced position here than they had in the United States. We were much better off before September 11 than they were. I also think that the airport system we have here in Canada is already very strong, and I don't think we have the conflict of interest that people think we have in providing those services. We're already providing most of the security for the airport system and feel that we're doing a pretty good job of it.

From a systems point of view, there are tremendous benefits to be gained by the integration of the system, to have one set of groups responsible for it. Whenever there's a weakness in a system, it's at the hand-off points. Right now, with too many players running in the system, we have the potential for too many hand-off points. And that's an issue.

• 1630

I think one group being responsible makes a great deal of sense. On that we agree. Additional training, job rotation, the ability to pay people better, and the ability to find promotion schemes all allow people to professionalize security delivery across the system. Those are all very desirable ends, and I don't think we have to break the mould in order to do it. I honestly don't. We have a lot of those elements already.

We seriously believe that for the airport system in this country—I can speak for Montreal, certainly, and for most of the others, I'm sure—a prime objective is the safety and security of our passengers and of all the people who work at that airport. It's of prime concern to us, and we don't have a profit motive.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Let me just finish with one question for the airport authority.

The mix of the responsibilities of any authority include property management, human resources aspects, retail work, security, working with the airlines, gate things, disputes—many different responsibilities. With all the other distractions you have as an airport authority, do you believe you're going to be able to give the real, full-time attention, focus, and integration that security needs?

Mr. Jim Cherry: As a matter of fact, we've hired a person—who's sitting next to me right here—who has that prime focus. That is his responsibility. He's a professional in that area, and he has a group of professional people working for him. Yes, that is his prime concern. I admit—and you're quite correct—that I have a bunch of things I have to worry about. Is it the only thing on my plate? No. But is it the major thing and probably the only thing on his? Yes, sir.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Val.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee.

As you've heard, we've come back from a mission down to the United States to see how they're handling this concern of airport and airline security. We heard a lot of things. There are some who say, yes, we want it out of the hands of the airports, we want it out of the hands of the airlines, and we want government to deal with it. Then we heard another concern, that if government deals with it, government may say, well, we're only opening two lines. There may be a thousand people lined up trying to catch planes, but the government says, we're only opening those two lines; that's all we're funding—without any kind of concern for the travelling public and the moving of the economy.

We really have to deal with balance here. I'm not sure what the answer is. We don't all think alike. But at some point we have to make sure we're not shutting down airlines and laying a whole bunch of people off just because people won't put up with the security measures we impose. I know there are some who feel that you can't be too secure, that you have to do it 100%, X-raying every bag and checking every person. It's not possible to do that. What you have to do is take this big elephant and bite off a small piece, the 20% that may be of concern, and make sure you move the other 80% as quickly as you can. I think you can do it, and I think we heard ways it can be done.

Now, I look at this list from CUPE—and we heard similar things from the flight attendant union south of the border—and it all sounds really good, and it's all very well-meaning. But let's just take one example, where you should only have ticketed passengers who have access to the sterile areas. I think we do that pretty well here, but there are exceptions. There are exceptions when an elderly person or a young child is travelling and the caregiver may take them to the plane to make sure they get on okay because there aren't enough staff to handle that concern. Are you now saying that handicapped people can't fly any more, that young children can't fly, or that the elderly can't fly because airlines won't have the capacity to handle the issue of getting them to the gate or onto the plane?

It sounds good and it makes a whole lot of sense, but I want to ask you, is that really what you're after, to make it so difficult that people are just going to stop flying?

• 1635

Mr. Richard Balnis: No, that's not our intention. The difficulty is with proposals under way in government before September 11, where an airport, because they were building a mall behind security screening, wanted to let anyone in.

You're right, for the legitimate exceptions, we need to make sure those exceptions are there to ensure the travel happens, yes. But we should not simply create malls behind the security screening. I think you're right in raising that concern. We'll take it under consideration and fine-tune it, but the very real danger is the push to go beyond those legitimate, reasonable exceptions for transportation simply for the airports to make money because they have their own financial problems.

The representative from Montreal didn't give you the talk about rents, but I'm sure if you were to ask him, he would. That's the problem they are faced with. I think we have to draw a balance, and for legitimate exceptions, yes. Our intention is not to shut down transportation, because that's our job.

Ms. Val Meredith: So how do we provide the kind of security that would make the travelling public confident without putting such a cost or such a burden on it? Some of your issues are quite straightforward: for example, changing the codes. The issue of piggybacking of staff, of crew, was brought up in our meetings, not only south but here. I happened to watch a crew of five or six people go through with one person opening the door. It's still happening, and it's not secure. How do you stop that sort of thing from happening?

That's not something the government can do for security. It's not even something the airport can do. Somebody has to be accountable and responsible for that. Who is? Who's responsible to make sure the regulations that are in place right now are followed, that the security in place now, without any new legislation, is adhered to?

Mr. Richard Balnis: I think the issue you're raising is a question of culture, making sure those regulations that are designed to ensure good practices are instilled in the culture and that everyone realizes that what you just described is unacceptable. Most of our members are a lot more cautious. There are exceptions, and we'd be quite happy to participate in some sort of effort—I don't know if I'd call it an educational campaign, but a cultural effort to make people aware that they should not let these little slips happen. We're quite happy. We believe that generally our members do follow that, but there are people who do not take it seriously, and we believe they ought to.

So, yes, if that can help and there are ways to do it.... In terms of how you would do it, I would look at a cultural educational campaign to instil in everyone the idea that September 11 did change the world, and that what could be a minor thing could change. You're right to raise that.

But on the other hand, you have some bigger government issues, for example, that not all employees who have access to the sterile area are required to be screened. You can have a variety of different employees simply not being screened at all. You'll have pilots and flight attendants. This is something that over the years we've thought unnecessary and have argued against, saying, “Listen, we've been cleared. Why would we want to sabotage or damage our own plane?” But September 11 changed that. Our members don't like it. It delays them for their flight. It may make them late for work. They may miss a connection. They will not be able to have that flight go with the passengers. But people have accepted this, and airports are developing specialized lines for crews to accelerate it so they're not held up in the longer lineups.

But why isn't government moving to require the screening of everyone going into the sterile area?

Ms. Val Meredith: My understanding is they're supposed to, that anybody who works behind the secure area goes through a screening process that goes through Transport Canada.

Mr. Richard Balnis: Oh, we're talking about two different things.

The screening process in terms of the background check, yes, everyone does that. What we're talking about is when you arrive at the workplace, you go through the airport security screening.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay.

Mr. Richard Balnis: So we're talking about two different things. Yes, they all get the background checks.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Cherry, one question was asked last night when we were doing a tour of the airport. I couldn't answer it, and I don't know if anybody else could answer. Do we have the same level of equipment in terms of X-raying baggage and doing ion scans on baggage?

Mr. Jim Cherry: The same level as they have in the U.S., for example?

Ms. Val Meredith: Yes. They have X-ray machines and ion scanners for bags as a second level of baggage check. It's a CAT scan equivalent type of thing. We were asked if we had this in Canadian airports, and we honestly couldn't answer. At least, I couldn't. Do we have that kind of equipment available to us in Canadian airports?

• 1640

Mr. Jim Cherry: Go ahead, Pierre-Paul. You know the details more than I do.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Officially, I should answer that it's out of my jurisdiction, so theoretically I should say I don't know. But right now we have a group going around to airports, and ion scanning equipment will be installed in all of the major airports within the next...it's three months for the ones with FIS and 12 months for all other major airports. But that's the responsibility of the air carriers at this time.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thanks. Now I know the answer.

The other issue that came up was a requirement, as I understand it, for any passengers flying to the United States to have a second degree of pre-flight screening. If I understand correctly—people can jump in—you don't go through the screening process only once; you are required to go through a screening process just prior to boarding that airplane.

In your airport can you accommodate that kind of additional screening process?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: What they do right now is hand search and verification of documentation at the gates. They do it under FAA rules.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, but for an international screening you go through customs, you have your bags searched, and then you're prepared to board the plane?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Yes, and then right at the gate, someone will hand search your carry-on baggage and check your documentation before you board the aircraft.

Ms. Val Meredith: We're doing that now?

Mr. Jim Cherry: On a test basis, not 100%.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay. But on an involuntary....

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Certain companies, like American Airlines, have instituted that kind of drill.

Ms. Val Meredith: So we are now complying with that requirement?

Mr. Jim Cherry: It's the airlines that operate in Montreal that comply with it. Yes, they do.

Ms. Val Meredith: But we're still able to comply with that regulation.

Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Excuse me, I'd like to know the answer, because my understanding of your question was that before the passenger leaves Toronto or Montreal airport—whatever airport—to go on an international flight or to the U.S., the baggage he's checking—not bringing on the plane—is verified.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, those are two different issues.

Mr. Jim Cherry: The hand luggage is checked.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: The hand luggage is not checked before you get on the plane.

Mr. Jim Cherry: The airlines check it at the gate.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: At the gate? Since when?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Since September 11.

Ms. Val Meredith: My understanding—

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I travel to the U.S. I've travelled quite a bit since September 11, and my hand luggage was never checked at the gate before I took the plane.

Ms. Val Meredith: So then the answer to that question is it's not a standard procedure at this particular point in time. It may be a random check.

Mr. Jim Cherry: It's being done by the airlines themselves, so it's an airline employee. It's not one of your guys doing it. It's an airline employee at the gate who's doing it.

Ms. Val Meredith: Does that sound like what we saw?

The Chair: Whenever you exit Toronto, you have all kinds of checks, including another screening just before you board the aircraft. So I think it's in some of them, particularly if you're going to Reagan. The authorities seem to be vetting it all the way from the United States.

Are you finished, Val?

Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Cherry, during our visit to Washington yesterday and the day before, I did not have the impression that our American friends were very worried about their neighbours to the north. You are right in saying that although the system is not perfect, we are not starting over from scratch since September 11. I think that the International Civil Aviation Organization gave Canada good marks for security in its report.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how essential do you consider the new entity that you are suggesting be created? Could you comment on that? You mentioned the work of Transport Canada, and I would like to hear your point of view on that.

Mr. Jim Cherry: For me personally, the most important aspect is the soundness of the system and the integration of the system on the whole. Simply adding another entity without a sounder system will not help much. That is my opinion.

• 1645

In my opinion, the most important improvement is fully integrating the system under one controlling body. As I mentioned earlier on, what is very important in a system is that each time responsibility passes from one person to another there is a weak point. In my opinion, that is the sine qua non condition for having a strong and sound system.

Mr. André Harvey: You pointed out that the quality of work being done here in the country with respect to security will probably mean that you do not have to adopt drastic measures like the United States. What were you alluding to when you said that?

Mr. Jim Cherry: I did not fully understand you. The measures that we have today—

Mr. André Harvey: In your brief, you say this:

As a result of our existing security arrangements, Canada does not have to undertake dramatic changes as we have witnessed in the United States.

Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. Jim Cherry: What I pointed out is clear. Our current system is strong enough. We have improvements to make, but we do not need to add radical measures as the other speaker pointed out a few minutes ago. We do not need recourse to drastic measures, nor do we need to make major changes to our system to improve it. We already have a solid system. We already have an excellent evaluation and screening system for employees with airside access. We already have a good access screening system. Improvements are required, but they do not need to be as radical as the ones we have seen in the United States. In my opinion, we do not need air marshals on all our flights. We do not need measures that are more serious than that. To my mind, we just need to improve the system and integrate it. That would help immensely.

I agree with my colleague who represents employees. Additional training is required. We must find a way of enabling these people to have a good career path, because sometimes it is better for these people to be integrated in a bigger, more significant system.

Do you want to add some comments?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Earlier on, a committee member mentioned training. The gentleman talked about exchanging information. That is exactly what we mean when we talk about integration. At present, airport security members receive information. They patrol the site, intervene, and protect the travelling public, but this information does not reach the people at the security check-ins because they are not part of the same organization.

There are legal and procedural barriers between these two groups. People at the security check-ins may be dealing with someone who represents a risk without knowing it, when the rest of the airport knows it. That is what we mean when we talk about integration.

You are asking if this organization will add something more and if it is essential. Our first concern is training. The company will most likely have to develop training programs and ensure that they are consistent across the country.

If we want pre-boarding screening operations to remain effective, we must research new equipment and perhaps new procedures. Someone somewhere will have to look into the matter. It becomes rather specialized if you want people to focus on that area.

So that is where the small organization can make a significant contribution to the system.

[English]

The Chair: All right, I'll go to Alex and then I'll come back to you, Mario.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Perhaps I missed out on some of the testimony, but do we have equipment to test for explosives in the Montreal airport?

Mr. Jim Cherry: There will be EDS equipment brought to the class one airports over the next three to four months. There is none installed at this juncture.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Historically then, we don't test baggage for explosives. Have we ever tested any baggage for explosives?

Mr. Jim Cherry: We have dogs who can do this. There is a test now. They actually do it today, but on a sampling basis, not 100% of all baggage. The testing is done by dogs, not by a chemical, an ion system. It's not done by any—

• 1650

Mr. Alex Shepherd: What rate of success do you have with dogs? In a sample size of 500 bags, two with explosives, do dogs invariably detect those two?

Mr. Jim Cherry: Frankly, I don't know. Pierre-Paul, perhaps you have—

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm talking about explosives in baggage.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm led to understand the only testing we do now is with dogs.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: That's right. The only detection tool we have at this time is dogs.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: What is their effectiveness rate? In other words, if I had 100 bags and I had explosives in two of them, are the dogs invariably going to pick those two?

The Chair: They are, Alex. I asked this question yesterday. The dogs are very good.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Very good isn't exactly a statistic. I want to know the statistical probability of the dogs detecting the explosives.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Right now the passing grade for a canine team is to detect 23 samples out of 25.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So why do you need the machines?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Why do we need the machines? Because sometimes dogs get colds. They become ineffective after 20 minutes of searching; they need a break and then start all over again. The equipment will give a higher rate of handling of baggage. That's it.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: It will give a rate higher than 23 out of 25?

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: Yes, sir. That's the passing rate.

Mr. Paul Szabo: You said rate. That means number of bags—

Ms. Val Meredith: No. It means volume.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: No. I'm saying the passing grade—

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's the success rate.

Mr. Pierre-Paul Pharand: The success rate. It's 23 out of 25.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: How do I reconcile this? You're talking about having national standards of security here, but you're basically a geographically based airport authority. How do you reconcile this?

Mr. Jim Cherry: The standards could be established nationally. The same standards that exist in many areas could be established across the country but the application of those standards would be done locally by a trained team.

We would expect, if the standards are promulgated on a national basis, the national government could and should have the ability to audit or test or ensure that those standards are being applied in the same fashion across the country.

It's pretty straightforward, actually, to establish the same standard, the same measures or objectives, for security across the country and leave the actual “how” of the way those are applied to adapt to the regional standards. But the results and the objectives have to be monitored on a regular basis by the national body.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm only seeking clarification of things in your document here. You're not suggesting your airport authority would be responsible for oversight of a regional airport, say, in Quebec.

Mr. Jim Cherry: No, I'm not suggesting that.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. That's fine.

The Chair: Are you done? We'll go to Mario then. That's nice and tidy.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: May I ask a question, please, before we go any further?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: Could anybody tell me who owns the screening equipment in the airports? Is it owned by a subcontractor?

The Chair: You've asked a question and we don't know the answer to it.

Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I would like to go back to my original position and I want to make sure we understand each other. My question was for Mr. Balnis, but I would like Mr. McBrearty to understand my interpretation.

Money is very important for this government. It decided not to support the airline industry. That is a choice. The Americans provided $15 billion in direct assistance to their airline industry. There are 300 million Americans, whereas we are 30 million. Proportionately, if the government had wanted to help the industry, it could have allocated $1.5 billion. To date, it has only given the airline industry $160 million. In addition to the $15 billion, the Americans are going to announce investments in security out of government funds. Again, that is a society's choice, but it is nevertheless a reality.

• 1655

The attacks against the towers and the entire capitalist system in America and North America are not the employees' fault. It was an attack against our society, against Canada indirectly, but primarily against the Americans and all capitalist societies in this world. That is the harsh reality.

That is why I prefer the interpretation given by Mr. Balnis and Mr. Limongelli, who say that the government should take responsibility for that through the Department of Justice. It is up to them to pay, it is not always... It would be great if it cost only $5 a ticket, Mr. McBrearty, but I doubt that. I think that it will cost a great deal more, and the government needs to understand that it is not just up to the industry or the airport authorities? to pay, otherwise the industry will go bankrupt. That is what is happening right now. The liquid assets of the airlines are being drained, and the same thing will happen with you.

So I like your interpretation better, Mr. Balnis. Of course, the government will have to take over financing and operations, and that could come under the Department of Justice. I would like to hear your comments on that.

[English]

Mr. Richard Balnis: In our document it is under the point...and we only highlighted it. It's on page 2. The first two points there are very important for us.

The first point, on the question of better airport security screening, as you can see in the document, is for the federal government to take over the financing and operation of airport security screening under the Department of Justice. The next line I think addresses your point: “This change would ensure full coordination with the federal government's policing, national defence, and intelligence resources.”

We also suggest that security screeners should be peace officers with the power of arrest. Most importantly for us is the need to standardize and improve security procedures. In this particular case, we think our proposal is the best way to ensure this.

I also mentioned earlier why our proposal would be advantageous over some of these Nav Canada-like models, not-for-profit corporations. I won't repeat this, but essentially that is our analysis. In this particular case we feel the federal government is the preferable way to deliver this important security service.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: As a last point, I want to say that I read your document and I agree with 95% of your recommendations. There is just the issue of air marshals on all flights, where I tend to agree with Mr. Cherry. That needs to be looked at. We need to be careful there. But as far as the rest go, I want to congratulate you because you have done good work. I think that the government would do well to read your recommendations.

My final question is for Mr. McBrearty. I would like to make sure that we are clear on something. If the industry is able to cover part of the costs, I agree with you, but this government needs to be told that it is not just up to the industry to pay for security measures. As I have already said, the terrorists have attacked our entire capitalist system, which is defended by the Canadian government and other governments. That is why the Americans are playing a direct role. It seems that little or nothing will come out of the Martin budget. The government is going to look for whatever liquid assets are still available here and there, and we will not be any further ahead a few months from now. I hope that that will not happen.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I do not believe that I said that the costs should be covered by the industry. I never mentioned that.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: No, but you did not seem to be sure. You said that no matter who pays... Somewhere, the government needs to be told who should pay. This committee needs to hear that the government has some responsibility and that it needs to pay its share. I know these people because I am always here with them. If you do not ask them for anything, they will not give you anything. You have to ask. I doubt that you will get very much, but it is important to at least ask the federal government to do its share and to contribute to the cost of security.

• 1700

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I mentioned that earlier. I believe that you were out of the room.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's fine.

[English]

Mr. Richard Balnis: I wanted to add one thing, in response to Bill C-42, which is going to eventually appear before this committee. I think Ms. Meredith was the quickest to pick up on this when the legislation was received. There are a number of amendments in that legislation where the minister will decide to apportion those costs and also to levy charges for security. I found, and you were quite correct in pointing it out in your response to Bill C-42, that it's the Minister of Transport himself who is going to be deciding how to levy those charges for security services. I think he's already laying the basis for perhaps what we may see on December 10, but we'll have to see if that legislation does—

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If Bill C-42 had dealt only with security, we might have agreed, but we are asking that Bill C-42 as it stands be withdrawn. The bill will probably be divided in two in the next few hours, since it contains things that are much more serious than security.

[English]

Mr. Richard Balnis: Absolutely. When you read the section just on aviation and when you read the other 18 acts, it's an omnibus bill that is indeed quite extensive.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to congratulate all the witnesses because their testimony has contributed to everyone's understanding, and that is something we really need.

Mr. McBrearty, you said that the Steelworkers feel that money for training should no longer come from sources such as the Employment Insurance Fund surplus. I must tell you that there is no Employment Insurance Fund surplus. It is the government's general fund. All government revenues are together in one fund.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. André Harvey: Don't worry, we won't fight in front of you. We should not go along with the Bloc's demagoguery, should we? We should be careful.

In any event, it is the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund and it is used to invest in health, in security measures, etc. I will not list at this point all the measures that were taken by the government after September 11. It has invested $160 million and additional initiatives are being announced every day.

I merely wished to point out that the money cannot come from the EI fund, because there is no surplus. It is added to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I mean no harm by this remark.

Mr. Lawrence McBrearty: I know that you mean no harm, but currently we are able to obtain money from HRDC in order to create a national council on the security industry in Canada, which is not limited to security at airports. There are other strategic points across the country that are vulnerable to terrorism; it does not stop at airports. We are saying that security is everyone's concern and that we have to look not only at airport security, but also at security throughout the country.

Since September 11, we realize that we have a problem at airports. We compare ourselves to the United States. Before, Canada perhaps did a much better job than the United States in security matters. Before, in Canada, you were not allowed to go through security and walk around on the other side, or accompany your wife and child as far as the boarding gate. In the United States, you could go anywhere, anytime. They have perhaps put an end to that now.

The government has money for training. What we need to do is set up a structure to oversee security in Canada. Now, what is the best type of structure?

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. McBrearty.

[English]

The Chair: Do we have any further questions of these witnesses?

Mario?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Excuse me, but I left the room earlier and I probably did not hear everything you had to say. I do not know whether you have asked for money from the government.

I would like to correct Mr. Cherry. We were told that things were going well before September 11, but the fact is that there was no ongoing security training program in which all the responsible people and all the employees participated. I agree with Mr. Balnis. We had to reach a difficult conclusion.

• 1705

When we focus so much on safety and security... We saw what happened: it was so important that we were able to see the damage that could be caused. I am pleased to learn that, as of November 24, there is a national council that will be meeting and that employees are finally part of the process. The airlines have changed at a breathtaking pace in the last 20 years, especially since the Liberals came to power, but the employees have always remained there, and they are the ones that the airlines have to deal with in order to guarantee safety and security.

We were told that everything is going well, but more than two months passed after the events before the airlines set up a kind of forum in which the employees could participate. I believe that it was high time this be done and that it is high time there be an ongoing training program.

In passing, I will say to my friend André that it is indeed the case that the EI fund is part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The government chose to roll the fund into the CRF in its last budget. It took all the money and kept it. However, this money belongs to you. Since 1996, the federal government has not put a cent into this kitty. It belongs to you, and I don't mind saying that they took it away from you.

Mr. Jim Cherry: It is important to point out that we work in airports, but we must draw a line somewhere. Aéroports de Montréal employees look after all aspects of security except the security check points and baggage screening. We have created a professional service at the airport. Airport employees, including those in the security department, are well trained. They are well paid and they are all CALEA accredited. That program is similar to the ISO program. We have already purchased equipment in our own area. We have already proven what we can do in our area of activity. The only areas where we are not involved today are security check points and baggage screening. But for the rest, we have already taken the necessary steps, including training.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have one final question for you, Mr. Cherry. In light of the other events that occurred in New York and elsewhere... You manage two airports, Dorval and Mirabel. Are you starting to look into your situation? One of your airports is located in an urban area, and some flight paths go right over residential neighbourhoods. Are you questioning that or have you not started thinking about that?

Mr. Jim Cherry: We are always thinking about security in the airport itself and around the airport, in the city. That is one of our concerns. I must also point out that there were other incidents after September 11, like the plane that crashed in New York a few weeks ago. We are always dealing with that. One of our main concerns is security and respect for all citizens on Montreal Island.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You know that you have an advantage over other countries. France wants to build another airport, farther away from the city. You have an advantage. Your airport is just outside the urban zone. I hope you have not forgotten that.

Mr. Jim Cherry: No, no. As you are very well aware, we have two airports, one for scheduled flights and the other for charters. We are dealing more and more with cargo and industrial transportation. We have created several positions in the area of cargo and industrial transportation over the past few years.

So we are concerned with both protecting the Montreal urban community and protecting the airport. It is a major concern.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That is good.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. You've helped us very much with your work plan.

I'm going to suspend until after the vote. You can have a chance to interact with the politicians. We do have a vote coming up shortly. So I'll suspend until after the vote.