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.