Transport Committee on May 11th, 2017

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block.

We have talked at length about prevention. Another concern that was raised in the article is the ability to respond at airports. This is in fact why we had wanted members of the Montreal police service to be present. I think it is that service, technically, that is responsible for interventions at airports. The same is probably true in Toronto. The local police forces are mandated to respond.

Mr. Oliver, I don't know if you can answer this question, but I would like to know whether airports have the necessary resources on site to respond if a person has gone through all the steps and has in their possession items that pose a threat to the public.

[A/Commr Joe Oliver]

I can only speak to those areas where the RCMP is the police of jurisdiction.

I'm aware that, in some instances, there are arrangements that have been made based on the standard set by Transport Canada that the police have to have a certain response time to certain types of alarms. It's the same with instances of continuous presence, for instance, at pre-clearance for the United States. There are instances where the police of jurisdiction are required.

Maybe the airport authority could speak more to that as well.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Rumig, does CSIS consider airports to be sensitive locations?

I presume so.

[Brian Rumig]

You presume correctly. Yes, indeed.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, instead of introducing a motion, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the members of the committee. I propose that we invite members of the Montreal police service and officials from the Montreal-Trudeau airport to address our concerns about security and their ability to respond.

I think that would be helpful. We could devote an hour to that. The possibility of having two meetings to cover this issue was raised. Yet we do not have to hear from other witnesses. We got a lot of answers today.

Nonetheless, if the committee members agree, we could invite representatives of the Montreal police and officials from the Montreal-Trudeau airport to describe the security process. This would also serve to reassure members of the public who use that airport as to the measures taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are scheduled to have one more meeting on aviation safety.

Mr. Berthold has indicated he would like to have the folks from the Montreal airport come. Given the fact that we are a federal government, we would have to deal with more than just Montreal. That would be my concern.

What are the wishes of the committee?

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Do we have witnesses scheduled for the additional meeting already?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The Auditor General is scheduled for that meeting.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

We have time.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Are you proposing that they're entered into the same existing meeting?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It would be part of the one two-hour block that we could utilize.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think that's fine by me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Those are the wishes of the committee? All right.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to the committee members.

I just want to cover all aspects of the issue and get some good answers.

Is my time up, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 15 seconds left.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay.

Thanks to all the witnesses for their answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not sure who I should ask, but I think the appropriate person will be able to answer.

In the reports about the event in Montreal, the spokesperson for the Montreal-Trudeau airport said he did not know the identity of the employees whose access had been revoked.

How can it be that the airport itself does not know the identify of people who cannot access secure areas? Who has that information? Did someone meet with the appropriate spokesperson? Was additional training provided? In light of those comments, what is your procedure?

[Laureen Kinney]

Our normal process, Madam Chair, is to go back to the airport when we've suspended a security clearance. The airport then talks to the regional CATSA person to make sure that the database connection is immediately disconnected so that pass will not show up accurately if they try to go into a secure area. Secondly, they take action to remove the pass, get it back from that employee, and ensure that it's been recovered.

I can't speak to the specifics. It may be something you want to ask at the next meeting. Normally, that would be something that someone in the airport in the security group would know. That may not mean that they would share those names with other people in the airport management.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In this incident you had four individuals who were highlighted. Two had been, I think, suspended, or their passes had been revoked, and two others are still working, but in different departments. Right?

[Laureen Kinney]

Since January 1, we've removed or suspended five clearances at the airport for various reasons. I'm not certain where people may be working in other places at this point in time. My staff may be aware of that.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Let's say the two of them worked in the same department or in different sectors, whatever you may call it. What happens to that sector or that department? Does it get scrutinized? Does it get a whole change of people going to work there? What happens?

[Laureen Kinney]

There's a first step of finding out information, so to be general here, again, there are individual circumstances that are going to vary. But when you hear information, typically it's going to be disturbing and not necessarily demonstrated as being factual. Maybe it's a report that's second-hand, and you're not sure what was said. When you first get that information, you start to check that out, and you get a little bit more information on that.

At the point where you become concerned or have any doubts about the capability of that person, we would suspend the clearance. Whether that would involve, then, some further consideration goes to the earlier question. If there was a further consideration, does this indicate something about that workplace, or are there potentially other security issues? We would be discussing that with our colleagues as we went through the individual person's assessment. Then typically that would go to either the airport themselves or to our law enforcement colleagues, police of jurisdiction.

In those circumstances that would happen, but it's not a routine part. One individual person having an issue does not generally reflect on the entire workplace.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Would anybody else on the panel like to share some comments?