Transport Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, absolutely. On the one hand, there is a desire to keep costs as low as possible so as not to affect business, but the lower the costs, the less is being invested in security and the more we use private sub-contractors, with whom we inevitably sign contracts.

You are right to say that their pension funds must not be the same as government pension funds. The issue is long-term training and security. Some private companies are successful, but others are less so. The government should have started examining the national security issue a long time ago.

[Laura Logan]

That's why we would like there to be behavioural and other kinds of analysis done, because it can sometimes be as effective, and occasionally more effective, than the technology. That kind of analysis is almost always expensive. Rather than investing in replacing evermore costly technologies over a number of generations, we should be designing another model, which is more balanced and will lower security-related costs. We can deliver a better product without having to make passengers pay more.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That is why the official from Israel said that they do not use body scanners. Furthermore, there is only one agency—not five—controlling security throughout the airport. They use behavioural profiling and this has allowed them to save huge amounts of money. Of course, they also have a process for preferential customers. Over here, it is NEXUS. And that is understandable.

However, I cannot see the day coming… And here I am appealing to my Conservative colleagues, who obviously support private enterprise. I have to admit that all of this started with the Liberals. Indeed, the Liberals began the process. At some point, the entire structure will need to be thoroughly reviewed. If we start making people pay, we had better be sure that they are paying for real service and that we are not skimping on security. What does that get us? It gets us where we were on December 25, when there was nobody left; there was no staff. Security companies had not made provision for that. Inevitably, you start losing money, your customers are dissatisfied and there are long lineups in every airport across the globe. That is what happened on December 25. That's hard to beat! The CEO of CATSA told us that it was the same thing all around the globe.

[Laura Logan]

That's why we are asking that the CATSA review take an in-depth look at structure and management issues. Is that really the best way of operating or can it be improved?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Mayes.

I have just one question. I've heard from a lot of people that NEXUS cards are difficult to apply for, and they're very invasive. I have to tell you, I applied for a NEXUS card, and I must be the only person in Canada who thinks that it was a pretty simple process.

I've been hunting since I was probably eight years old. I know that comes as a bit of shock, but when I was 16 I had to go and get a safety firearms course. Then I had to fill out forms. Every five years or so, I have to fill out forms for a weapon. I have to tell you, to be able to hunt in this country takes the most invasive process I've ever seen about anything. Every five years they renew it. They do background checks on ex-wives and things like that.

Quite frankly, I was surprised at how easy the NEXUS card is compared to the firearms card, especially considering what we saw happen with 9/11. You couldn't cause that much devastation for that many people in probably three weeks with a modern weapon in Canada.

So I'm wondering, are we moving towards a system where we would have one card or one biometric database that would enable you to get on planes, trains, and major transportation automobiles, cross borders, enter Parliament Hill, go to courthouses, and things like that? Are we moving towards a system of biometrics or a single card or some sort of system where there will be one central database and you're either an A level security, B level security, or C level security, and that will give you certain entitlements from there?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I can't speak to where we're going. Hopefully that will come up in our review. I have heard of similar programs like that in Australia, and I understand it's relatively effective.

I think the premise is quite reasonable in that you take your time and energy, provide all of that data, you get your NEXUS card for, I believe, five years now, and that makes you a trusted traveller. You reap the benefits of that when you fly on commercial carriers in North America. There are cards of course that are expandable to the global environment, and I believe the Canadian government is working on a few.

In terms of the scope of this discussion as to where security is going, I can't speak to whether that's going to be the trend, but I can certainly see the value of having that trusted traveller program expanded, absolutely.

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

And moving towards biometrics?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I think biometrics is becoming a best practice, absolutely.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

As you know, our government is trying to maintain an acceptable level of security in a cost-effective way, in a way that will not impede a timely and efficient movement of passengers.

One of the questions is what is an acceptable level of security? We have to determine that before we can actually put in the various initiatives to provide that. Of course, there are different layers now, whether it's the trusted traveller or NEXUS card, behavioural screening at airports, or the body scanners. They're all different levels. It's more the implementation of how we do those things that I think is important.

I was quite interested in your comment that:

It is entirely legitimate to, in the course of a review, question whether an aviation security agency, which in turn subcontracts the actual screening and security service provision at airports to third party firms, is a cost-effective system of administration....

That statement almost says that you would prefer to see it run by a government rather than contracting those types of services out. It's kind of interesting, because my colleague here provided me with some information on what they're doing in New Zealand, and there's a large international contractor out of the Netherlands called QuinTech. They are providing security for countries such as Australia, China, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, U.K., and the U.S.

I'd like to have a few comments of why you would think that it would be better that the Government of Canada provide that security at the airports, with manning and implementing the various levels of security, compared to contracting that out.

[Laura Logan]

It's a complex thing. Our statement is not strictly a negative reflection on contracting out. Contracting out has its place, and certainly, as Air Canada is an international carrier, we do use contract security services in some of our stations around the world. Where we have one flight every couple of days, it does not make economic sense to have employees on site. We can use the employees of other carriers or service providers under contract, and we fully recognize that is a viable model.

What we're looking at here is the total split. There are a lot of what we find are excessive costs associated with the administration of CATSA, and that's part of what we would like to have looked at. It's not just to say the administration is there and that's a given and let's focus on the costs of the subcontracting; we need to look at the way the administration works and the way that the two go together.

So we don't have, necessarily, hard and fast views on where that should go, but we think it is something that merits additional review and analysis through the CATSA review process.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

But there still needs to be that oversight, I think, by the Government of Canada, and....

[Laura Logan]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to go to Ms. Crombie now.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, with regard to the comment Mr. Mayes made about what is an acceptable level of security, if the witnesses wouldn't turn that around and ask what is an acceptable level of risk that we're willing to endure.

[Lorne Mackenzie]

Yes, it's truly a risk assessment, and a full risk assessment would be required to determine what an acceptable level of risk would be.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I wanted to ask you about CATSA's mandate and the government's. We talked about the need for a review. When was the last time there was a review of CATSA and its mandate?

[Laura Logan]

There was the CATSA flight plan study that was done a couple of years ago that looked at the way that CATSA was working at that point. But the world has continued to evolve, and the threats and the demands that are put on CATSA and the way that CATSA has continued to deliver its services have also evolved significantly since that point. So we fully support that it is timely to take another look at it.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

So how would you recommend that their mandate be altered?

[Laura Logan]

I don't think we want to comment specifically with a recommendation, other than to be involved in the discussion on where that goes. The mandate of providing passenger screening and checked-bag screening is definitely something that is necessary, and whether that's done by a crown corporation or another structure, we would like to be involved in the discussions on that.

One area where the CATSA mandate is potentially in question is their involvement in cargo screening, because at this point all of the costs associated with cargo screening are borne by the carriers directly.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

What is your assessment of CATSA's ability to fill its mandate currently?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I was just going to add an additional comment.

In the flight plan review that was conducted, it was important to note that while the consultation was excellent, they stated up front that budget-slash-funding issues would not be discussed. So it was not completely a fulsome review. It sort of targeted the tactical pieces.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

That must inhibit their ability to perform their mandate, though, if they don't feel they have fulsome resources.

Ms. Logan mentioned best practices in other jurisdictions. Is there anything that you would suggest we can bring to Canada?