Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, M. Chairman.

I asked questions of the witness who appeared prior to you, as to the list that was presented this morning. The list of items allowed on board was apparently much smaller in 2006 and 2008 compared to 2011. The previous witness did not seem to know what I was talking about. He simply said that it was not up to his agency to determine which items were allowed on board a plane or not.

I understand the need to strengthen security measures at checkpoints in airports, following terrorist attacks. When I am about to board a plane it reassures me to see how strict the rules are and to realize that I simply can't bring anything I like on board.

You cannot have two lighters or toothpaste larger than a certain size. However, we now are going to allow a hockey team to board a flight with 22 pairs of skates because there are 22 players. We will allow for duct tape on board because they need to tape their hockey sticks. They can bring scissors as well to cut the duct tape. They can carry the type of tie wraps often used by police officers as handcuffs or to tie people up. They can even carry metal handcuffs.

Well, what was prohibited in 2006 and 2008 is now allowed in 2011, something I do not find reassuring. It is not reassuring to passengers either, nor cabin crew. I'm wondering to what extent we intend to become more lenient. These types of items on planes may represent a danger.

I think Transport Canada is getting lax, allowing these items on board. Not only unions but members of the House of Commons should demand from Transport Canada that these items be prohibited on planes.

[Richard Balnis]

I entirely agree with you. In terms of the chart, what we did was speak on February 4 with the officials who drafted the list, and we confirmed everything that is in the third column. Based on the prohibited items list issue, it has been relaxed.... The CATSA witness didn't say that the prohibited items list alone was relaxed; he spoke of security in general. We just think you're creating a loophole.

What we haven't been able to confirm is exactly what the House of Commons.... We were going to bring in devices. The last time I tried to bring in devices under six centimetres, they were actually prohibited by your security. So the House of Commons has better security than the planes do when it comes to prohibited items.

I haven't checked to see whether that list has been relaxed, but I think it's now sort of black and ivory in terms of what is now allowed on board the aircraft as a result of February 3. In our view, it is an inappropriate weakening of the prohibited items list.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Further to our study on aviation safety and security, would you like to see our committee support the union's position as to the prohibition of certain items?

I personally would have preferred limiting the number of items allowed on board rather than loosening restrictions. Would you like us to recommend in our reports that these items not be allowed on board planes?

[Richard Balnis]

If the committee could find its way to that recommendation, that would be very helpful to us, and we would thank you, sir.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, you have about four minutes.

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

That's perfect. Thank you.

Now, you've admitted, Mr. Balnis, that Canada currently has one of the strictest set of regulations in the world, out of the 115 countries within this international security perimeter. You've admitted that--is that correct, sir?

[Richard Balnis]

I honestly don't know the IATA international security perimeter that you're referring to, so I can't agree with that. In terms of ICAO rules and the other jurisdictions we looked at, I guess so; you're correct. But in terms of the 115-country security perimeter run by a private association of airlines.... I'm not familiar with it, so I can't admit to that.

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

I understand.

Maybe you don't understand, and maybe I haven't communicated properly, that the security perimeter is the airport, sir, the international airports that are all connected by flights. That's the security perimeter. Inside of each of those airports is a perimeter, and those are guarded by people and countries and by police who guard that perimeter from terrorists. It's a perimeter, and they're all connected by flights, because once you get within that perimeter.... You're not searched once you're inside an airport, except the initial time that you go in. That's the point. That's the security perimeter.

But what I fail to understand, sir, is this. I'm going to give you a scenario.

You have a hockey tournament taking place in Halifax. Kids from New York and all over the United States fly up to Halifax, and they go through Toronto. So they fly from New York up to Toronto, and they carry their skates on the plane. Now a different group of individuals, but playing in the same tournament, come from Edmonton, and they fly from Edmonton to Toronto. They're not allowed to take their skates on. So we have these American team guys who are in Toronto with their skates, and we have people from all over Canada who have come for the same tournament, because they're going to fly from Toronto to Halifax, and they don't have their skates because they're not allowed to.

How does that make the stewardesses you represent any safer, with half of them on the plane, for instance in Toronto, going to fly to Halifax with skates and half without? There's no logic to me in that, sir. I'm trying to understand. I'm using skates.... I can't even imagine somebody running up and down the isle of an airplane with a skate and terrorizing me. That's not going to terrorize me, to be honest. But I'm using this as an example.

As a criminal lawyer.... And the reason it's not terrorizing me is that in Fort McMurray, for more than ten years I saw people killed with bottles.... Well, I never saw them, but I saw the evidence afterwards; I saw the evidence of bottles. I even saw a person beaten to death with the jaw of a dead moose, believe it or not. Knives, bottles.... The worst weapon you can have in a bar is a broken bottle, and there are tons of bottles on airplanes all across the world. Zip ties also.... You mentioned handcuffs, but zip ties that riot police use throughout the world I don't think have ever been illegal on planes. But zip ties are as good as any metal handcuff. I'm not familiar with whether they have...except if they designated them as a restraining device before two years ago. Did they do that?

[Richard Balnis]

They were accepted for crews who have those on board.

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

Zip ties, okay.

But you know what I'm saying. There are a lot of things that could be used as handcuffs. The curtains can be used as handcuffs. I just don't see how this is going to make any of your members safer if people within that international security perimeter—and in this case, 112 or 113 countries—are allowed to have all these things while Canada is going to be separate and apart and we're not going to allow people to have that, even though everybody else within that same system has those. How does that make the people you represent any safer?

[Richard Balnis]

In the limited time I have to respond, you're a very long-time traveller, sir, when you refer to flight attendants as stewardesses. We refer to them as flight attendants now.

In terms of your reference to skates, half skates, I don't think doubling the risk is the appropriate way to go on that issue.

On the question of glassware on board, we approached ICAO six years ago asking it to get rid of wine bottles, which was opposed by France, not surprisingly. So we have—

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

All of the duty-free would be gone if they did what you're suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're running out of time. If you want to complete, I'll give you about 30 seconds.

[Richard Balnis]

Not other than to thank the committee for my opportunity to appear today and express our views, sir. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and we appreciate your comments and input. As we write this report, we'll be remembering what you've told us today. Thank you.

For the committee, we meet again today at 3:30, on Bill C-33, and I hope everybody will be there.

The meeting is adjourned.