I am going to respond to the portion of the question Mr. McGuinty asked with respect to the intrusions that took place in September 2006.
Let me begin, if you don't mind, by correcting some of the misperceptions in that event. There were a couple of things that were misstated. First of all, the journalist did in fact get hold of a vehicle, but it was on the ground side of the airport. It was never in a restricted zone. It was a Handlex vehicle, and it's well documented that the vehicle was not in the restricted zone, it was outside the restricted zone.
Most of the interventions he made were in areas in tenants' properties, where he got inside the building and there were open doors at the far end of the building--hangar doors, frankly--which would have given him access to the runway. He never did actually get access to the runway in any of those instances.
There were two times when he did get access to what we call the restricted zone. One time he went underneath the fence, on Ryan Avenue, which is in the general aviation area. This is about a mile and a half from the main terminal, to the east of the main terminal, where private airplanes land and take off. He went underneath the fence, had his picture taken and escaped back underneath the fence before the patrol came around and found him. But he was a long way from the operational area of the main tarmac and he didn't even approach the runway, didn't approach the taxiway. He was only on the other side of a restricted zone fence.
As I mentioned at the outset, we have about 30 kilometres of perimeter that are patrolled regularly, frequently, but we don't have somebody at every point along that perimeter constantly.
The other time he made an intrusion into what we call the restricted area, he was actually accompanied by somebody from one of our tenants. The tenant did not follow the protocol, because you're not allowed to bring somebody out on the tarmac unless...he was escorted, but he didn't have a “with escort” pass on. So he did gain access to the tarmac, but he was escorted. There was somebody with him. So he wasn't walking by himself on the tarmac at that point.
The one you made reference to, which frankly I do find the most troubling and the one that we've reacted.... We've reacted in all instances, by the way, but I want to reassure people that the one everybody has taken very seriously was the intrusion in Cara, even though that's not even inside the restricted zone. The Cara kitchens are outside the restricted area of the airport.
Because of the nature of that intrusion, we were very concerned about it, as were the people from Cara, as were the people who use their food, the airlines. You can rest assured that steps have been taken to make certain there will not be a repeat of that. We have stepped up our vigilance in the case.... We have always been visiting these people and looking into their compliance with our rules, but we've stepped up those procedures to make sure there will not be a repeat of that.
Having said that, is a 30-kilometre perimeter absolutely leak proof? No, it is not. It is not armed, it is not electrified. It is a fence with barbed wire, but as you know, there are ways to get through or around fences like that. This is why I mentioned during the course of my presentation that there are layers of measures put into place. If somebody gets through that fence, there are patrols, and the patrols are frequent, and we can and do catch people who get over the fences with those patrols. It's a long way from Ryan Avenue, where this person got into the airport and over that fence to have his famous picture taken, to where the operational end of the airport is. A lot of opportunities to have him apprehended before that would have happened. As I said, he wasn't in there very long. He went in, had his picture snapped, and jumped back underneath again.