Transport Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Lorne Mackenzie]

The reference to behavioural is an example. What we're looking at is more of a global approach. There are going to be elements of other programs—Israel has come up as sort of a leader in that area—that we can consider as part of that review and say what components, if not all, are going to be practical and applicable to Canada's environment. While I don't want to cite a number of specific examples, those other approaches would be things that we'd like to consider in the review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

I carry this NEXUS card, and it says the issuing authority is U.S.A. Why would it be so? Why can't Canada issue this NEXUS card when we are going through all the security here?

[Laura Logan]

I'm not an expert on the NEXUS program, but I note that it is jointly managed between the Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection group. So I think they're both issuing authorities. It depends which form you fill out or which route you go through, but it's an equivalent program that is managed jointly between the two governments.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay.

You said that you would not like to see customers being subject to racial or ethnic profiling by the security. Are you aware of any? I get some calls that complain about CATSA. One of the senators, in fact, has come forward and has mentioned to me issues like that.

Are you aware of any situations like that?

[Laura Logan]

No. We obviously get comments and questions about it, but to the best of our knowledge, the CATSA processes are random. They're designed to be random, and that's what happens.

As the other member mentioned, she got put through the special process. My family and I all go through it. I've been through every secondary method there possibly is. I get chosen on a random basis very regularly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I'm a visitor to this committee, as you can see, just filling in, but there are a lot of connections to some of the other parliamentary responsibilities and work that I'm personally involved with on the public safety and national security committee in studying the efficiencies of CBSA and the process of our border crossings in terms of similar parallels, I would say, to queues at significant border crossings, the amount of time it takes to get through security at the pillboxes, the border agents, and some of the techniques and increased security we've had to face.

As many of you now know--at least where I'm from, which is southwestern Ontario--going into the United States can be something where, as you're travelling towards the border, you're actually listening to the time backups at the border. I'm sure we're all quite familiar with that. But it strikes me that there are a lot of similarities.

As a private business person throughout my life, I want to drill down on this efficiency question. In a lot of ways, when the government does a program, as we have, we have a great many inefficiencies. I'm interested in your comment on the administrative side of this program. Are you suggesting that, through a review, that review, in your mind, might expose a lot of efficiencies that could be realized on the administrative side? Is it administration-heavy?

[Laura Logan]

From our perspective, yes, it is, and we think there's opportunity for improvement.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

It strikes me that this is the tendency as programs develop and as time goes on. These things become little empires unto themselves and they get bogged down with all kinds of issues, including labour management relations and all that goes along with that. So I'm not advocating that there isn't a place for the government to play a role, but as we evolve, it seems to me that these issues relate in a lot of ways to the security issues, which are really in their infancy stages as you develop them.

I'd like to have your perspective on whether that's an accurate description. When you look at some of the agencies that have been around for a long, long time, at how they've evolved and what has happened to them when they're government-run, I would be interested in your perspective. Have you looked at those parallels? Have you looked at efficient management, efficient delivery of services, and increasing security at the same time? That's what we're driving at in our committee work with the CBSA, because we see that with the existing resources. They can do a much better job, in a much more streamlined way, without having to throw more money at it.

[Lorne Mackenzie]

If we can find those efficiencies and reduce the cost, we're all winners, in that sense, without jeopardizing the level of security. Again, I'm pushing for this review for the purposes of finding out where the inefficiencies are.

I hearken back to the day when our carriers did the security. There was a vested interest in making it efficient, cost-effective, and obviously security-effective. Those premises should apply under whatever regime, whether it be federal or private. So we'd like to see that type of efficiency built into whatever model comes out of the review.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I hope I have a bit more time, Mr. Chair.

From a first-term MP's perspective, as I see things work, I think this is a direction we have to take. We have to stop thinking that we just need to add more staff and more staff to take care of the need.

I want to switch gears to what my colleague Mr. Jean was driving at in terms of a “common standard” card, something that does the pre-screening and moves the security back--away from the airport, really, in your case, or, in our case, away from the border. The intelligence that our law enforcement community has about people, way before they ever even decide to travel...and how you integrate that into something. One of the things that a number of jurisdictions are working on is an enhanced driver's licence, as an easier way, perhaps, to get that information about the individual and put it into the process of getting a driver's licence. It may not equate to an interview through the NEXUS process, but at least it gives you another layer before they even make a decision to travel.

Do you see anything coming down the line or anything in best practices in other jurisdictions that, to your minds, our government can learn from?

[Lorne Mackenzie]

My initial comment is that we have to remove a lot of barriers. There's some sensitivity about sharing information. Those kinds of regulations need to be adjusted to accommodate a more global approach. If each of the 50 states in the U.S. is doing an enhanced driver's licence, it's clearly not workable. I mean, we have all the provinces and the various territories. If you can work towards convergence and talk your way to mutual acceptance, whereby you start to work together as a team, then I think those synergies can be developed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

Just before we go into our final round, one issue that I think keeps coming up is the limit of what people are prepared to give up for security reasons as opposed to for their rights. Has there been any kind of study or any surveying of passengers or of customers that might shed some light on this?

I'll use the example Ms. Crombie used. We fly a lot, and yet we subject ourselves to all of this simply because that's what we're asked to do. If you object, then obviously you get a different reaction. That, I think, is what happens when customers are frustrated and respond accordingly.

Is there anything out there, any document or anything, that would suggest that customers are willing to give up this and this--provided they get “this” on the security side?

[Laura Logan]

Given that the security programs and requirements have all been driven by the governments, whether in the case of passports, NEXUS cards, or enhanced driver's licences—those types of things—there's nothing I'm aware of that has been widely circulated within the public concerning people's willingness to give it up. But I think, based on our experience of seeing passengers work through the various processes, there is a willingness to give up a certain amount of personal information if there is a corresponding reassurance that the information will be treated with ultimate discretion by the authorities who get the information and by those private companies who receive the numbers afterwards. If, for example, we're trusted with passport information from all of our passengers who travel internationally, we have to treat that information with the ultimate in discretion, and passengers depend on us to be doing that.

To your point about enhancing cards and using that information, if more information were going to be passed to the carriers, we would have to treat it with discretion, but we would also request that there be consistency in the formats. Each province has a different format for their driver's licence number, and that's a nightmare for us, for systems. And then the passports are different. From a carrier perspective, to be able to capture that information, if those types of programs were to be put in place, and then effectively use it would become extremely expensive and difficult for us, unless standards were put in place right from the beginning.

So while we support those types of programs and that type of discussion coming forward, it has to respect the public's need for privacy and for control of information. It also has to be put in such a way that it can be used in an economically viable manner by the companies involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is the challenge. It might be something that everybody who flies gets surveyed on, based on their experience. It may be a question that you'd recommend they ask. You don't attach a name to it or anything; it's just a consumer who has a point a view.

[Laura Logan]

I'll kind of turn it around and say that it might be appropriate for the government to survey through the various government contact points. As private carriers, we do not want to be collecting that type of information and doing that type of program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And yet you survey us on a constant basis.

[Laura Logan]

Yes--on those items where we are in control and can hope to improve the service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

But again, we're asking you to provide us with some help in forming policy, and I'm just encouraging—

[Laura Logan]

Yes. We would definitely be involved in the development and the questioning of the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Wonderful.

We'll have one more round, with four minutes each.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of us in this room are more likely to be frequent flyers and to have plans like Aeroplan. Is any of the information from those plans ever shared with the government?

[Laura Logan]

Absolutely not.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But are you suggesting that it should be done in the future for security purposes?