Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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

Yes, I did. You're right--International Air Transport Association.

[Richard Balnis]

Yes.

I think I tried to respond.... The ICAO list allows knives under six centimetres. The Canadian government has not gone that loose, to its credit, because its threat risk assessment decided that those knives should be.... So we haven't harmonized fully with ICAO.

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

I do understand that. We're not harmonizing with ICAO. I'm not saying ICAO. I'm saying the International Air Transportation Association is who we've harmonized with. There are 115 countries. I think that's one of the requirements. ICAO is, as well, which is based in Montreal. That's also a requirement, I believe, to be part of this international security perimeter.

What I'm trying to ask, sir, is does this not bring us into norms with all expectations of our international partners? For instance, you're in New York City, and the United States allows a minor hockey team to bring its skates on board. They fly to Canada. They have their little hockey tournament. And then they fly back, and they have to make other arrangements for their skates in order to fly back into the United States. So the perimeter is only as strong as its weakest point. That is my point.

Is that fair, Mr. Balnis? Is the international security perimeter the strongest at its weakest point? We've heard expert testimony of that before. For instance, once you're inside that international security perimeter, you can go anywhere inside that perimeter, in essence.

[Richard Balnis]

I'm not so sure of the role of IATA, because it is a voluntary association of airlines. I don't think it sets regulatory standards for governments to follow. Maybe the airlines do, but the prohibited items list I understand is regulated in this country by Transport Canada as an enabled document, and then it is put in force by CATSA.

You're absolutely right about the weakest point. If I came from New York, I could bring tools up to seven inches on board an aircraft. We think that is unacceptable. The U.S. flight attendants.... It's into the system—

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

I understand, but you're already in the system.

[Richard Balnis]

But it would be banned.

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

Exactly. You're saying to us as a government, “Although it's okay for Americans to bring weapons that we don't consider to be dangerous...”. And whether it be Great Britain or Europe or the United States, they can bring tools that they don't consider to be dangerous. But Canadians have to be inconvenienced, notwithstanding that somebody's already within that air security perimeter who has exactly what you're suggesting we don't allow in Canada.

It's not going to change whether people are safe or not safe within that security perimeter. It's not going to, because somebody from another place already did that. What you're asking us to do is actually inconvenience Canadians for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

[Richard Balnis]

I disagree with this “for no purpose whatsoever”, because you are diluting your security standards.

The threat risk assessment conducted by Transport Canada staff concluded, in this particular incident, that it is unacceptable to have tools of that length. They found the U.S. rule unacceptable, based on their transport risk assessment.

Is it inconsistent? Absolutely.

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

Are you suggesting that everybody who gets off an airline in a Canadian airport has to go through security and get rid of anything they are allowed to carry through in the United States, or Europe, or some other place around the world? Are you suggesting that everybody who comes to Canada, before they're allowed into the airport, has to go through another security screening process and then comply with Canadian rules?

That's the only way we're going to make what you're suggesting of any value whatsoever.

[Richard Balnis]

We're not suggesting that people be rescreened when they come from the U.S.

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

But what you're suggesting is that people from the United States are allowed to carry things into Canada, but people from Canada are not allowed to carry things into the United States or anywhere else within the system, even though those things are already frequent among other international travellers who come into our system. They're already there.

So either we comply with our international partners and our norms and try to work together to have a consistent international security perimeter or else we have to create our own security perimeter and keep everybody out.

[Richard Balnis]

I think you're inventing a scenario that is designed to deflect from the issue we're raising. The Canadian standards are more strict. What you're saying is that because the U.S. or someone else dilutes it, we should therefore go to the diluted standard. We're suggesting that this erodes security.

When Prime Minister Harper stood with President Obama and said “we have improved security of passengers and air cargo”, when it came to the prohibited items list he was not correct.

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

I disagree with you, with respect, sir; I think he was correct. I think we have made great strides in the last five years in this country in relation to air cargo security and airline passenger security. I think we have. As well, we have to balance, of course, the convenience for passengers.

But I still come to the same point, sir. If we're allowing these people coming in from other countries into our security perimeter, and you're asking Canadians to do something different, which is not to carry certain things that are already within it, are you going to say to Canadians on the plane and Americans on the plane, you can carry different things, even though the Americans or the Europeans have all of these seven-inch tools or two-inch knives?

My understanding is that all knives are not allowed within that security perimeter at this stage, even though it may be recommended by ICAO. But you're suggesting that passengers from Canada be treated more inconveniently than passengers from the United States, even though they're ultimately going to end up in the same system.

I understand your position, sir, and that you're taking the position, I understand, of the people you work for, but the reality is that it's impossible to comply with what you're suggesting without creating our own security perimeter and without inconveniencing Canadians a lot—a great amount.

Those are all my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

This has been an interesting exchange. The parliamentary secretary seems to be indicating that the axiom to “err on the side of caution” is not applicable in this particular circumstance, and that safety, when over-engineered, is not helpful to us. In fact, it appears that the argument is being made that if we have international aviation partners and destinations with less safe regimes than we have, we should adopt the less safe regimes.

Would that be a categorization of what you just heard, or would you agree or disagree with that?

[Richard Balnis]

I agree with your characterization of what I heard. The example I would raise is that Mr. Jean has indicated he's a long-time participant in these committees, and this committee has debated the ratio of flight attendants on board. There is a prevailing international standard of one flight attendant for 50 seats, and in Canada it is one flight attendant for 40 seats since 1971. For 39 years Canada has been different, and this committee has considered that issue. In fact, the Conservatives walked out of the committee after an appearance.

So in some cases Canada does have different standards from those in the rest of the world. I think your characterization of Mr. Jean's intervention is absolutely correct, and I agree with your characterization of it.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It would appear to me that the events or the circumstances, the motivations behind decision points in aviation security, are reactive rather than proactive. They're event-driven, incident-driven.

We've had several instances of new, stricter provisions suddenly being announced and enforced. Is it your professional opinion that we'll probably have future instances in which we may have international strengthening or tightening of these regimes, as opposed to relaxation of the regimes?

[Richard Balnis]

Back in 1995, when airlines ran pre-boarding screening there was a debate over what is a weapon. It was decided by Transport Canada and the United States that for the interest of looking for explosives and the interest of improving throughput through checkpoints, knives of less than four inches should be allowed. Six years later, all the weapons that were used were legal to bring on board. So a loophole was exploited.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Six years...?

[Richard Balnis]

That's from 1995 to 2011.

I don't want to be part of a debate here saying you're being unrealistic, you're being outside international standards, and we heard CATSA say “we're looking for more important things than explosives”. I heard it from Transport Canada, and the same official who was there in 1995 is at ICAO, writing his ICAO rules.

I read the 9/11 commission staff report of what happened on each of those aircraft. We deal with our sister union in the United States, and Mr. Jean is right: I am representing the members. We believe this is a mistake creating an unwarranted loophole, and that we should not be loosening these standards.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

You've eloquently made the case that flight attendants are front-line security personnel. You've said so in your presentation. Especially with the reduction in air marshals, they're the only ones on board representing authority on an aircraft with a closed cockpit. What is the general perception of your membership--those front-line security personnel, we'll call them--to the constant changes, to the continuous moderation of these security standards?

[Richard Balnis]

We believe they are concerned, and we have invited our members to make their representations to Minister Strahl, objecting to this change. The world has changed profoundly since 9/11. You used to be able to take little kids to the cockpit, the door was a sliding partition, the world was very different. Now you're constantly vigilant, trying to identify the passengers on board who could be a problem, and the stress level has increased. A number of concerns of flight attendants cover items allowed from regimes with looser...they have expressed that to us and that has animated what we hope is our representation to you to do something to stop this relaxation.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'll close with a quick comment saying that it just seems to me the ambiguity, the confusion among the travelling public, is indeed somewhat justified, given the fact that while we loosen and tighten restrictions on carry-on objects, we still have glass stemware available on flights, and those ground rules, those airside screening rules, are constantly in flux. Do you understand the frustration and the confusion within the travelling public about these rule changes and how they aggravate the whole flying experience?

[Richard Balnis]

I think people are getting progressively used to what's allowed on board, and these kinds of flip-flopping and inconsistencies only exacerbate.... We are entirely sympathetic with long lineups of passengers who have a very difficult time checking in, boarding their flight, and then they arrive at their aircraft, it's delayed and then they sit down and they're just aggravated and then we have to deal with that. We want to make their travel experience as comfortable as possible, so they're happy passengers, because a happy passenger makes the flight very easy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to stop.

Mr. Asselin.