Transport Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

--or a camera or whatever. Honestly, that doesn't seem to be a reason to install these scanners. There's got to be some reason to do this, something we can identify as a reason why we should spend $11 million of taxpayers money.

Plus there are the incredible operating costs of these things. You've got to have different people—one person to examine the person, another person to independently look at them so they can't realize who is the person they are looking at. You have to have people going in and out of these scanning booths. You have to keep up the attention of the scanners, so you'll have to change them at very regular intervals so that people can keep looking at the scanning equipment to actually determine things.

I mean, I've seen the images. These people are going to have to pay attention to see something.

[Dr. Mark Salter]

Yes. I think the question of attention and rotation is interesting. There's a psychologist in Switzerland who argues precisely the opposite, that it takes 20 minutes for one to sort of warm up on the scanners in order to be able to detect things, precisely because it's difficult to detect on these images, including for the sit-down X-rays. Rotating people through the post regularly does not seem to be more efficient than rotating them slowly. But that's a minor point.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I would say, as well, the subject material is going to be very difficult for people who are going to be looking at this day in and day out. I think that's going to be another considerable psychological problem for most of the scanning people.

[Dr. Mark Salter]

It could be, but I think the primary reason to do it is because it detects both metal and explosives better than the current system. You will not need fewer people for the sniffer technology than you need now for the body scanners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Sela, a comment?

[Rafi Sela]

First of all, I disagree: you need fewer people for the sniffer than for the X-ray, because the sniffer is automatic.

Second, I don't want to scare you, but what happens if I'm a suicide bomber and I go through this machine and blow myself up? Do you buy a new machine and a new terminal? What do you do?

You can only detect a suicide bomber when he's at the machine, because you don't do anything before or after it. That's my point. If I really want to inflict harm on an airport and I'm a suicide bomber and you don't have any means of profiling me before I get there, I could get five of those guys in front of five of your scanners and the whole system is gone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll give my colleague Mr. Richards an opportunity to ask a question first, then I'll ask a couple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate Mr. Bruinooge sharing some time with me.

Mr. Sela, we've heard a lot from you today about the passenger screening or behavioural analysis that you do in your country. I know you've mentioned that you don't feel the scanners we're purchasing here in Canada are the best method of technology that could be used. What I am curious about, and I didn't hear a lot about it from you today, are the technology methods you use to complement your passenger screening, your profiling that you do.

Could you elaborate a bit for me on some of the technology methods you use and why you feel those are the best way to go?

[Rafi Sela]

First of all, we do not rely on the scanners, per se. The only reason we have scanners at Ben Gurion airport is because of ICAO standards.

By the way, we do profile people at the scanner. We do look at the people. We do profile them behaviourally. We don't pay much attention to what they have in their bags unless it is banned by ICAO--guns, knives, and stuff like that. But you can take five bottles of very good Israeli wine back with you to Canada, if you fly directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick question for Professor Salter, as we're likely running out of time.

I'd like to go back to one of your comments in relation to security risk relative to Israel and how, because of the fact that perhaps we don't have a militant country that is attempting to or wanting to enter into another country or other countries around our country that have these various aggressive philosophies, perhaps, or not.... I think that was what you were indicating.

If we don't have the systems that are similar to Israel's, doesn't that in essence make us a riskier target because of the fact that really there is a general ease for which a terrorist could achieve some type of global political goal in Canada? I guess my point is that perhaps you could talk about our risk level relative to our systems and where that places Canada in the world.

[Dr. Mark Salter]

Thank you.

First of all, the Ogdensburg agreement says to the United States, for example, that Canada will not be a launching place for attacks to the U.S. So there's a very real way in which our security is tied to our neighbour's in the same way. But Israel is subject to much more frequent suicide bombings, in particular, than Canada has ever been. Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber, is sort of one of the primary events that we had, and the Air India attack. That has been two in the past 35 years.

So our level of threat is very much lower. It is true that al Qaeda has named Canada as one of the allies of the United States. That puts us on the radar. So I don't want to say that we are a country that has not been named specifically, because we have, but in particular because of our geographic position and because of our politics and our open society, I think we are in a much different situation. Our risk level is much lower than that of Israel.

I want to pick up on something that Mr. Sela said. He said that if you can't detect those individuals about whom you are worried at the perimeter of the airport, and then identify them for greater screening as they go through the system....

I want you to think about what that would mean for Canada. That would mean CCTV or some kind of detection on, what, the 409, on the Airport Parkway, on the QEW? It would mean pushing surveillance out from the terminal and from the airport in a way that I think does not really sit well with the Canadian culture of freedom of movement.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have one last point, I guess just to wrap up.

On December 16, I was in the Vancouver International Airport. As I was boarding my flight, a very large Ford SUV smashed through all the glass and ended up right at the counter where you get tickets, not 20 feet away from me.

Of course, that was an accident, but it could have been something else. I think there is merit to having some perimeters in our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With that, I will thank our guests.

The challenge for all of us is to provide safety and security to travellers, and to have two divergent views on that is good for our committee to hear, I think. We look forward to meeting and visiting with you again in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Sela, for your time today. I know you're with us not physically but certainly in spirit and mind.

Mr. Salter, thank you for your contribution.

We are going to go into a subcommittee, but first I'd like the attention of all the committee. I have passed around a request for travel. That is subject to us getting enough people organized and prepared to travel in May after our May week break in our constituencies. I need a motion to approve it so that we can take it to the budget committee.

Monsieur Laframboise has moved it. Mr. Jean has seconded it.

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. I appreciate it. That will go to the liaison committee today.

Mr. Jean.

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

This is on a point of order, as a result of what took place in an in camera meeting some time ago in relation to Mr. Kennedy. There was some information that was said in camera. My understanding is that the Speaker cannot make any ruling in relation to in camera discussions unless he is given permission by the committee to have that information.

What I'm moving today is a motion to allow the Speaker, and only the Speaker, to receive the information that was contained within an in camera meeting--that in camera meeting in particular--so he can make a proper determination in relation to the point of privilege that the committee directed to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there comments?

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm wondering procedurally what really has to happen. I thought there had to be a concurrence motion first, because the committee has reported its deliberations, and those deliberations included reflections that emanated from debates in camera.

The Speaker I guess would have to address it if the report that was submitted to the House had received a concurrence motion, or the House itself had concurred in that particular report. If the House has not concurred in that report, then the Speaker doesn't have to deliberate on it.

Now, that was my understanding. I'm wondering whether our clerk can shed some light on that.

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

It was actually from the clerk that this request arose. That's my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Bonnie.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Bonnie Charron]

We don't need to do a concurrence motion in the House because we didn't report an actual motion for the House to then concur in. We reported a bit of a narrative of what happened. We brought the issue to the Speaker's attention. At this point now it would be for any member to notify the Speaker that they intended to raise the issue in the usual method after question period as a question of privilege.

Regarding the Speaker having access to the in camera transcripts, I don't know the process for that, but we can certainly pass a motion to that effect if we choose to.

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

On a point of clarification, my understanding is that we must push this forward to close the matter. I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse--quite frankly, I feel that horse is gone--but I think we have to follow through with it.

I was going to raise it after question period either today or tomorrow. To be very blunt, it was going to be less than a paragraph long. It wasn't going to point out any particular incident that took place. It was just going to ask the Speaker to please investigate what took place and make a determination.

I'm not looking to embarrass anybody or to follow through to find somebody sanctioned it in any way, to be blunt. I don't think that's constructive. But I just wanted to give him the opportunity to have all of the information so there's nobody left at the side, if there is an issue on that.

So it's by way of a motion, and it's just to open up the in camera discussion so that he can analyze it fully and thoroughly. If the committee does agree, it's just going to ask the Speaker to investigate: that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will advise that there is a House vote. The lights are flashing. It's a 30-minute bell.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I think the parliamentary secretary's motion is straightforward. In any case, we don't intend to make a big deal about this. We simply have to have everything necessary so we can close this debate.