Transport Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Thank you.

Mr. McGuinty, you have approximately three minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to the question of cargo screening. You just gave us the statistic that roughly 50% of all cargo carried out of Montreal.... I don't know what it would be nationally, but it would be interesting to get that from Transport Canada. Can Canadians assume that half of the cargo carried in Canadian planes is on passenger planes?

[James Cherry]

I think we're pretty typical in that respect. It's in that ballpark, anyway.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What percentage of Canadian passengers do you think are travelling on planes with unscreened cargo in the holds?

[James Cherry]

First of all, you shouldn't be thinking that there aren't any procedures at all taken by the airlines. The airlines have their own procedures. They screen the cargo. Is it screened by a third party agency? None of it is screened by a third party agency. But I think it's important to recognize, as I mentioned before, that the airlines have a very significant vested interest in this process. They have their assets, their employees, their reputation at stake.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand all of that, for sure.

[James Cherry]

They take it very seriously.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I used to act for airlines.

What percentage of passengers do you think travelling in Canada today are travelling on planes with unscreened cargo in the hold?

[James Cherry]

I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I could say that--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Duchesneau, would you know offhand?

[Jacques Duchesneau]

I have no idea.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to turn to Mr. Duchesneau just for a second, because time is of the essence. I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duchesneau, you have six mandates, six responsibilities. If mandated by Parliament, do you believe that CATSA would be able to evolve? As you say, there's a need to reinvent and reinvigorate yourselves on a continuing basis. Are you prepared? Do you think CATSA would be able to evolve and take on a seventh mandate, which is cargo screening?

[Jacques Duchesneau]

Mr. Chair, we're working with Transport Canada on committees. We're not the experts; we're learning. But yes, we're open for any mandate that the cabinet and government would give us.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was struck by a comment you made on page 2 of your presentation. You said that it is unrealistic to think we can eliminate 100% of the threats in civil aviation, and that such screening would, in fact, “encumber the air transport network to the point of paralyzing it”.

What do you think it would cost if the Canadian airline civil aviation system were to shut down for a week--post 9/11, for example--if an incident were to occur in Canada? How much would it cost?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

A brief answer, if you can.

[Jacques Duchesneau]

I'm not in a position to give you an answer on this. It would cost a lot in terms of what happened on 9/11, if that is your question. But I'm not the expert on this.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

My question, Mr. Chair, is can we afford not to do this?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

That is your time. Thank you.

Do you have a quick answer, Mr. Duchesneau?

[Jacques Duchesneau]

It depends on the nature of the threat. That's what I've been trying to convey. We analyze the threat. We take Canadian measures to take care of Canadian problems. I don't think we could leave you under the impression that there's no security surrounding cargo, even though I'm not the expert in cargo--I need to repeat that. I know from working with colleagues that there is security. But that is a government decision.

One thing I can assure you of, Mr. Chair, is that if we were given a mandate we would take it very seriously, as we have with the other mandates.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Thank you.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

We are members of Parliament but we are also people who regularly receive comments from the public. When I read everything that has been in the papers, I must admit that I do not feel reassured given the events that took place at the Montreal Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau international airport.

Mr. Duchesneau said that he assures responsibility and six very specific mandates. On the other hand, in the latest newspaper clippings I received, it says that Transport Canada conducted an investigation and that department officials do not want to issue recommendations nor disclose the shortcomings that were discovered. Mr. Cherry, for his part, is responsible for airport administration.

We've been talking about one event, but there could be more over the next few days or weeks. Who is ultimately responsible? Is it Transport Canada, that is not adequately monitoring what is happening at the airport, or is it the airport administrations or CATSA that have shortcomings?

[Jacques Duchesneau]

I'll give you an answer, and then let my colleague have the floor.

When we see articles like those, we know that the issue affects the security community as a whole. We all have to take it seriously. Whenever there is an incident, be it in Vancouver, Montreal or Halifax, we have to take measures.

In the first years after CATSA was established, I maintained that our role was primarily to manage fear. I think that is something we have succeeded in doing. I completely understand, Mr. Carrier, what you are saying about the effect such newspaper articles have on people. Yes, people may be worried. However, I should point out that the Canadian government has taken measures, and through CATSA and Transport Canada, it is internationally regarded as one of the leaders in this area.

Is the system full proof? No. However, we must ensure that people feel confident. When we ask passengers, we find that 94% feel confident. So we shouldn't overreact, but neither should we turn a deaf ear to comments of that nature. We do have to take measures.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'll come back to my question.

Transport Canada investigated the incidents. Officials from the department say that they noted deficiencies and had them remedied. However, nothing of that was disclosed to the public. Personally, I do not believe that Transport Canada publicly confirmed that all means had been taken and that there would be no irregularities in the future. I also don't have any way to be sure that ADM has remedied the problems in the system. It's as if no one is assuming responsibility for the incident. I agree that we must not be alarmist and overreact to the smallest incident. Nonetheless, I do not have the impression that some person or body , at the end of the day, assumes responsibility.

Earlier in his presentation, Mr. Cherry said that he had met tenants individually to remind them of their responsibilities regarding controlling access to the restricted area. Personally, I don't find it reassuring to know that he met the tenants. Will those tenants take his remarks into account? Should it not be ADM's role to take measures to control that access, rather than asking tenants to do it? We are talking about a high-risk area. Moreover, there are tenants who don't necessarily listen to what their landlords or managers have to say.

[James Cherry]

Following the events, we did of course meet to explain everything and take necessary measures. I don't want to provide you with every detail on the measures we have taken, since this meeting is public and security is always a delicate issue.

Transport Canada officials visited all our tenants. In addition, we conducted tests to identify intrusions. Once again, I cannot give you all the details. If you set up an alarm system in your house, you won't print the access code in Le Journal de Montréal. The same goes for us. We have to protect certain security measures. But you can take it for granted we took the incident very seriously. There are limits, though. We cannot set up systems that are 100% full proof. Can we improve the system? Yes. Can we set up intrusion tests more frequently? Yes. In fact, that is what we have started to do.

As I was saying to Mr. McGuinty a few moments ago, we have to put things in perspective. There were two intrusions into the restricted area. One of the two occurred a mile and a half from the terminal building, under the fence, and the intruder quickly thought better and then took off. The other intrusion was in a restricted area, but the intruder was accompanied by the staff member of a company, a tenant. Those are the two instances where the restricted area was breached. The third incident, which I mentioned to Mr. McGuinty and found more significant—even though the restricted area was not involved—was the intrusion into Cara's premises. Cara prepares meals and food for flights by Air Canada and other carriers. In conjunction with officials from Air Canada and other airlines, we visited Cara to ensure that the company had indeed applied the new access control measures. We also visited other tenants to ensure they had taken the incidents seriously. We will continue to do this.

But is the system full proof? No, we cannot say it is, given that you can never eliminate the human factor. But we do know more monitoring is required. We have to see it all in perspective however even if someone were to get on the airfield we should bear in mind that the airfield is competently patrolled. The person might be able to get near a plane, but there are other levels of security in place to prevent genuine threats.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Cherry, I've let you go on, but I must cut you off simply because of time. There'll be an opportunity for a further question.

Mr. Miller.