Transport Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Laura Logan]

Yes. It's a heavy system.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The U.S. is providing this $5 security charge, and you're saying that's about 38% of their cost.

[Laura Logan]

It's 30%.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So it would be about $15 to go.... They can provide the security for a flight to Paris at about half the cost we can; yet, if you did the risk analysis for a U.S. flight versus a Canadian flight, would you say that the risk was higher on a U.S. flight?

[Laura Logan]

Based on intelligence that's floating around, yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So why is there such a differentiation between the cost of providing security in a higher-security zone like the U.S. versus in Canada? What's intrinsically wrong with our system that has driven these costs right through the roof?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I think that's kind of what's driving our interest to do a review. Obviously there are better efficiencies and more cost-effective approaches to this. We're hoping that through a review we can find out what those systems are, to take out, for example, inefficiencies and get to a more level playing field so that we can have similar costs to the traveller.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do we have a problem of the “sacred cow” syndrome in Canada, that we get this technology in place and...? I went to a conference yesterday and heard this symposium where people talking about the fact that...and Transport Canada was saying, well, once we get the technology in place, we have a hard time getting rid of it.

Is that what's happening with security here, that we've made choices and now we can't back off from those choices, that we have a very difficult time in withdrawing from what we're doing and getting into more cost-effective methods?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I think there's been a heavy emphasis on technology, which tends to be capital-intensive; there's a sense to continue that trend. I think by stepping back and looking at other systems that perhaps are more efficient and more effective, we can say this is a chance for us to look at the structure, the mandate, what CATSA's role is, and adjust accordingly. It's not something that you cannot change. It's something that will take some time, but it's not that you are--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Are we in danger as well, because of our pattern of behaviour so far as an organization, that by adding on the behavioural stuff we're just going to add another layer on top of what we have and add more expense to what we're doing, rather than stepping back and saying asking what is a good system for Canada?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

The goal is to shoot for the latter--to step back and say that maybe it is an additional piece, but it would be a comprehensive review, ensuring, I have to add, that the stakeholders are involved so we're not in a silo doing a parcel of particular initiatives, but we're all on board with what we're going forward with.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do you think that's possible? Within the confines of how you've dealt with Transport Canada--you're probably very experienced in dealing with Transport Canada over many years--do you think Transport Canada is equipped to make changes?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

Through consultation, absolutely.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You're confident.

[Lorne Mackenzie]

I am confident that we can do that over time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, it's heartening to hear that.

And that's no reflection on the political administration of Transport Canada.

Studies were done recently on the impact of cellphones on airport aviation equipment. What were the results of those studies?

[Laura Logan]

That's actually an aviation safety issue, so that's outside our area of expertise.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You're not interested in passenger communication on board an aircraft as a security issue? It's simply not a security issue?

[Laura Logan]

We have to resolve the safety issues and whether or not they pose conflicts with the communications the pilots are using on the aircraft. Once that's resolved, and it looks as if we're going to be opening that up, if that happens, then we would be looking at it from a security perspective, but at this point it's premature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you both for being here. Obviously, as partners in this whole process with the two major airlines in Canada, I know you're a big part of this process as well, and we sure appreciate that and appreciate you being here today.

Obviously, all around this table, there are people who are some of the highest users of your service. I'm from Alberta, so I do spend a fair bit of time in airports and in the air, going back and forth to the riding each week. People are well familiar with that fact, and I'm quite often asked if I'm sick and tired of all the security lineups and that kind of thing. People who travel understand that it's an issue for travellers.

One starts to recognize people at the airport every week who are also frequent travellers, and I often think about the time and effort involved for businesses and some of the productivity that can be lost as a result of long wait times in an airport, or long delays there.

Obviously, safety is a very important issue for air travellers and we want to make sure we're ensuring that, but in the process, we want to make sure we're being very efficient as well.

I have kind of a two-part question, to a degree.

First, you mentioned some of our strategies and initiatives we're undertaking as a government. You mentioned the behavioural screening and talked in a fair amount of detail about that. You very briefly touched on the new body scanners, but I didn't hear a lot about that. I just want to hear some of your thoughts on that technology and whether you feel that has been, and will be, an improvement.

Secondly, what else can be done, or what else would you see as ways we can improve, not only safety but the efficiency through which we move people through airports?

That's a concern for Canadians. They want to know they're safe. They want to know that when they travel they're safe. They want to know that we're ensuring their safety. But they also want to make sure that they can get through that security lineup as quickly as possible.

So what can we do to find that balance? What more can be done?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

Allow me to address the scanners first.

First of all, I'm sure I can speak for Air Canada and the other NACC members when I say that we would not fly if we felt there was any security risk. We have confidence in the system, that they are screening to the point where we're satisfied that there are reasonable security levels.

In terms of the scanner itself and whatever new technologies may be coming, we're all for increased throughput and we would like to see technology be part of that strategy, particularly the newer levels that have less invasive, more efficient throughput, those sorts of things. That's a win-win, where you can maintain or enhance the level of security and increase the throughput.

The fact of the matter was that after the December event in the U.S., if we wanted to continue to fly to the U.S., we had to meet the U.S. measures. Keep in mind that scanners are just specifically for flights to the U.S. It was a necessary step toward ensuring security for our trips to the U.S., to continue services.

I'd like to think that if we could all step back and look again at the global network and ask, what's effective and what's efficient, and take a more methodical approach to it rather than a reactionary response, we'd find that we'd get more effective technology in place in the long run. It speaks to the behavioural analysis and that sort of thing.

The second one was....

[Laura Logan]

It was about the efficiency.

That's where we were talking about using other information and other approaches so that the screening doesn't happen strictly at the checkpoint.

If it happens throughout the process and we have information fairly early on in the process, we can build systems. They're not existent now in the Canadian context, but it's possible to develop systems that will allow us to screen from earlier in the process than just at the checkpoint. Then we can stream people through—to the point that has been brought up by numerous members.

We're using the technology for those people who need it, not for everybody. So those delays are not felt by everybody, and therefore, the queues actually become shorter for everybody. The idea of having a random component is valuable, but relying on random as the only determinant factor as to whether you get that additional screening we feel could be improved upon and is not an optimal situation. So if you were to use more of the intelligence and the information that we have about people and what we can observe about their behaviour, you could stream them--high-risk, low-risk--and use those technologies more effectively.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

On a follow-up to that, programs like NEXUS are the kinds of thing you're talking about there. Obviously something needs to be done to encourage increased participation in that, but you would say that....

[Laura Logan]

Yes, we support that direction.