Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Will these changes in any way make air travel for Canadians more dangerous?

[Kevin McGarr]

I do not believe so, no.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You mentioned small scissors, six centimetres. How do you measure that? Is that from the tip of the handle to the point?

[Kevin McGarr]

With respect to scissors, it is from the fulcrum, the point at which the blades, if separated, would be joined.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What is the penalty for carrying scissors or tools over six centimetres?

[Kevin McGarr]

There is not a penalty, per se. They are not allowed in the restricted area, so a passenger having an item that is prohibited has a number of options: they can put it in their checked luggage, they can give it to a friend or a greeter who is with them, they can mail it back to themselves, or they can surrender it at the checkpoint. The only rule is that they may not enter the restricted area with that item in their possession.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On September 11 the hijackers who seized airliners used box cutters to attack some of the crew and passengers. How will Canada prevent the same thing from occurring?

[Kevin McGarr]

Overall, I believe to answer that question we have to look at the comprehensive security system that is in place. There are many layers to the security system currently in place in Canada, and I believe the layers that are in place address the security requirements of Canadians in order that they be confident that when entering the restricted area they are secure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to interrupt there.

As our time is drawing to a close, I want to thank our guests for being here.

If I may make just one comment, in your opening comments you talked about internal changes to improve the quality of service delivery. I think if there's one thing that MPs hear consistently it's exactly that. I think the people who work in those positions have to become more consistent in their work across the country. I think they have to become more professional in their behaviour and in their treatment of passengers. And on your suggestion that you're looking at improving the level of quality of service, I hope that is achieved, because I think that's one issue that will undermine your ability to continue to grow your operation and provide that service. It's about professionalism and treating the customer with the right kind of care.

Thank you very much.

[Kevin McGarr]

I agree with you 100%, and thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're going to take a two-minute recess while we reload our witness stand.

We're suspended for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Joining us now, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, is Mr. Richard Balnis, senior officer, research.

Obviously you've also been here enough times to know the process, so I'll ask you to make some opening comments and then we'll move to questions.

[Richard Balnis, Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

We have distributed three documents to you, entirely in English and in French.

We appear today on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The airline division of CUPE represents about 9,500 flight attendants at Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canadian North, CanJet, Cathay Pacific for the flight attendants based in Canada, and First Air.

On January 28, 2011, we urged Minister Strahl, in the strongest possible terms, to not proceed with the proposed changes to the prohibited items list—PIL—without full public scrutiny and proper understanding of the implications of the changes being made. That letter is attached as the third item in your package. It is in English and French. We have yet to receive a response from the minister.

As that letter explains, we cannot ignore the lessons of history when it comes to security. Legal bladed weapons of less than 3.5 inches in length were the weapon of choice in the 9/11 attacks. Transport Canada, and in particular CATSA—and we will go through CATSA's involvement in this policy development—continue to refuse to see the slashing potential of such bladed weapons.

The presence of previously restricted PIL articles on our aircraft affect the security and the ability of flight attendants to maintain good order and discipline in the cabin when dealing with disruptive and unruly passengers. In the unique environment of our aircraft at 35,000 feet, real help could be hours away. The government has decided recently to reduce the number of RCMP armed police officers, or what people call marshals, on board our aircraft by 25%, further lessening the resources available to us. Pilots are not supposed to leave the cockpit. So even the most mundane item can become a serious threat in the hands of terrorists, suicide attackers, and even unruly and/or disturbed passengers. The aircraft cabin is no place for these items. We believe there are more effective alternative solutions without sacrificing current security or safety standards.

We are therefore disappointed that Transport Canada proceeded with these changes on February 3 without heeding our advice or meeting with us. We are saddened how government media relations have downplayed these changes to the prohibited items list, speaking only of the return of tweezers, toe clippers, and eyeglass screwdrivers, and cynically pitting the inconvenience of passengers facing long CATSA lineups against the maintenance of onboard security.

When Prime Minister Harper, on February 4, spoke of the Canada-U.S. perimeter security initiative, he said that Canada has strengthened the safety and security of travellers and cargo. This is not the case with the changes to the prohibited items list. The embrace of “risk management” in that joint statement will further dilute safety and security.

We have now had the opportunity to fully review all the changes to the prohibited items. It is in a document called TP 14628 E, which is available on their website—TP stands for Transport Publication. It is more than just the two changes announced in the news release. We have also found that changes recommended by a stakeholder working group in October 2008 did not find their way into the new PIL, blocked to a large extent by CATSA. We have also found, more seriously, that CATSA actually appears to be misinterpreting the PIL by allowing blunt-ended scissors in excess of six centimetres on board.

We have prepared a chart. It's English on one side and French on the other side. There are four columns there. The first column, previous PIL, was what Minister Cannon signed into force on December 11, 2006. The second column is the final report of the PIL working group that met from 2007 to October 2008. We were members, CATSA was a member, pilots were members, and other stakeholders were members.

The new PIL is what was announced on February 3 by the minister. And there is a CATSA operational PIL, on its website. We looked at it on February 4 and we looked at it last night. We can confirm what is there. It is there for travellers, and I guess screeners as well, as part of their standard operating procedures to determine what actually goes on board. It is a very useful website and we would recommend that you look at it.

Based on that review, we have discovered that Transport Canada is allowing darts, hypodermic needles and syringes, hockey and figure skates, and restraining devices back on our aircraft.

And turning to page 3, as you can see in the chart under “Hypodermic needles/syringes”, the previous PIL prohibited it, the report of the working group prohibited it, and Transport Canada is now allowing it. But according to the CATSA website, they are still prohibiting it except for medical reasons and with needle guards.

This is a reasonable and practical arrangement that balances security with legitimate medical needs; however, what Transport Canada is now allowing, which CATSA does not appear to be allowing, is that you can board the aircraft with a syringe containing an unknown substance, claim it is HIV virus or something else, and expose crew and passengers to such threats—or even realities—on board an aircraft.

We do not know on what basis the department thought this scenario, brought from street crime, should be brought onto an aircraft. As we noted, it appears that CATSA is not following the Transport Canada PIL, if one reads the website.

Moving on to page 4, I think some members have already raised the fact that ice skates are now being brought on board. The prohibited items working group saw no need for their return, and they were banned by ICAO, the European Union, and the U.S.'s TSA. There is no reason for ice skates to be removed.

As members will have noted on page 4, restraining devices constituted a matter of considerable discussion. Reviewing duct tape, skipping rope, plastic and metal handcuffs, and so-called flexi cuffs, the PIL working group conducted a threat and risk assessment and concluded that at least metal and plastic handcuffs still had to be banned. They are banned in Australia. CATSA, in the final report, opposed this conclusion as their dissent, arguing that restraining devices are not a threat to aviation security despite the findings of the Transport Canada threat and risk assessment. After October 2008, somehow this CATSA argument won its way with Transport Canada, causing it to overlook its own threat risk assessment for these articles. All restraining devices are now permitted on board, along with straitjackets and whips.

This is a good example, in our view, of the department's fundamental misunderstanding of what the prohibited items list means for security and safety on our aircraft. Let's take the following scenario. Scissors under 2.5 inches in length are now permissible, and depending upon the make and model, without alteration they can be used to cut the plastic restraining ties used by flight attendants to deal with escalating situations involving disruptive or unruly passengers. Meanwhile, flight attendants can now be restrained by passengers bringing on board their own legally permissible metal and plastic handcuffs.

What logic is this—to make it easier to take and restrain hostages in a cabin? We don't know whether this scenario was even considered by the department. And if it was, why would we want to create such a situation on our aircraft?

Finally, on page 5 of my remarks, just to highlight them, is the point that a number of positive, progressive changes from the working group did not find their way into the new prohibited items list. Climbing crampons and boots and metal knitting needles, opposed by CATSA, did not find their way into the new PIL or the CATSA operationalized PIL, despite the results of Transport Canada's threat/risk assessment. Most importantly, CATSA's PIL on its website shows that CATSA now allows scissors with pointy tips under six centimetres—2.5 inches—but CATSA will also allow blunt-ended scissors of any length, including those in excess of 10 centimetres or more. These would be ferocious bladed weapons when those scissors are broken in two.

There is no basis for this distinction in Transport Canada's new prohibited items list or that of ICAO. Transport Canada's own threat/risk assessment makes no conclusion that blunt-ended scissors without any limit on length can be allowed back on aircraft. We believe CATSA has exploited a loophole that is based on the false premise, shared by many officials alike, that scissors can only be used to puncture and never to slash. This is simply wrong. Transport Canada must act to close this loophole in its version of the PIL on its website.

In our view, the changes to the PIL were not done transparently or with full information to all stakeholders. Mistakes have been made. CATSA appears to have been given far too much influence in this process—despite what the previous witnesses said—to the detriment of aviation safety and security. Obvious anomalies need to be corrected immediately, and other changes to the PIL need to be retracted.

I can respond on issues of international harmonization, but I'll do that in response to questions a little later.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Balnis, for being with us.

I guess I'm trying to figure out the rationale for some of these actions. I can't really understand why it's a good idea to allow metal handcuffs, for example, onto airplanes. I guess I'd like to ask you for two possible rationales.

In one of your documents, you say that one can kick down the pilot's door in 12 kicks, I think. One of the rationales for being a bit more easygoing on things like scissors is that the pilot's door is locked and you can't get access to the pilot. Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by 12 kicks and the degree to which the door to the cockpit can be forced open?

[Richard Balnis]

Transport Canada, in the documents that were with the February 3 announcement, talks of the hardened cockpit door. They say the aircraft can no longer be taken over, that it can no longer be turned into a suicide weapon.

Unfortunately, when you look at the certification standards of the door—and we have made representations to Transport Canada—they are designed to stop bullets going in, not stop force on the hinges.

We have spoken to RCMP marshals who are very familiar with the environment on the aircraft, and they have indicated that the door is at best a delaying tactic. This is not news. Anyone who looks at the certification standards will realize that the door is but a delaying tactic. We are not impregnable up there.

Regardless of whether we are impregnable or not, the flight attendants are in the cabin dealing with whatever situation is there. Pilots cannot come out any more; they should not come out any more. Flight attendants now have to deal with the cabin on their own, with fewer resources.

So it's for those reasons.

As to their rationale for doing it, we were never given a disposition of dissent or comments after October 2008, when the final report was published. CATSA said that restraining devices are not a threat to aviation security. We were never told by Transport Canada that they agreed with them for such and such reasons even though their own threat risk assessment said they should be banned.

So we don't know why they went back; we were just told by Minister Merrifield that they're changing the PIL, and then on February 3 we saw this, and as we went through the list, we saw that there were more items than the small tools.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Concerning the air marshals, you said there was a 25% cut. Is that in the number of air marshals, or in the budget, or...? Can you tell us a bit more about that?

[Richard Balnis]

We raised this issue with Transport Canada at the end of November and said we understood there had been a 25% cut and asked what Transport Canada had done about it. We were advised by the officials that they were not consulted, that it was simply a directive from the central organs of government, as part of their budget review, to cut 10% or whatever figure, and that is when the RCMP on its own decision cut air marshals by 25%.

Whether it's based on the budget, or the number of flights...they decide how they put on the flights. All we have is that it's a 25% cut. Transport Canada said they were not consulted; it was an RCMP-only decision to respond to the directives of central organs of government to cut the budget.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

In terms of harmonization, one rationale for these changes could be that they are harmonizing with other countries such as the U.S. or the U.K. or whatever. Can you tell me, concerning the examples on your chart—the handcuffs, the needles or syringes, or the pointed scissors under six centimetres—whether those items are justifiable? I wouldn't justify them, but could they be justifiable in terms of harmonizing with other countries?

[Richard Balnis]

In preparation for today's testimony, I looked at exactly those items.

The ICAO list provides illustrations, very much like the Transport Canada list. ICAO allows knives under 2.5 inches on board aircraft. We do not allow any knives, because Transport Canada did a threat/risk assessment that said no. So we're already not in harmony with ICAO because we think the ICAO rules are too loose.

The U.S. allows scissors of up to four inches in length from the fulcrum and tools of up to seven inches. We only allow six centimetres, because our threat risk assessment determined that the U.S. rule was too dangerous.

Restraining devices appear to be allowed by ICAO and the European Union, but the good old Australians don't think handcuffs should be on board.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

And the U.S.?

[Richard Balnis]

Yes, apparently, by the TSA.

It's a bit of a mix and match. On bladed weapons, we are not consistent with ICAO and the U.S.; we are fortunately more restrictive. On the case of restraining devices, I think the issue of safety I've tried to raise is more important. Ice skates were apparently banned back in 2008, but I haven't had a chance to catch up to date. The hypodermic needles are apparently only allowed for medical purposes in the U.S. I don't know why Transport Canada opened it all the way up; I think that's a mistake.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. With respect to ICAO rules, each country makes their own. Are the ICAO rules supposed to be some sort of international guide?

[Richard Balnis]

It is a guide, sir.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, thank you.