Transport Committee on May 11th, 2017

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

The safety and security is forefront in training at airports throughout the country. I'm not really sure I see the connection with innovation. Innovation and technology are helping us do our jobs better. Taking it back to CATSA, certainly one of the concerns we have with the budget is that CATSA had a plan to introduce technology that would help it do its job better—I'm talking about CATSA Plus—and the funding for that has been stalled. Generally when we look at innovation and technology we see that as being a good thing for improving safety and security. It allows us to do more with less and to be more precise and focus our resources and time on areas with the greatest element of risk.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps I put it a bit clumsily. There are two things I was trying to explore, separate from one another, and I think I've conflated the two concepts.

With respect to innovation rather than just training, you mentioned CATSA Plus, but are there certain technologies being used elsewhere in the world that we could be adopting with investments in Canada?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I think as a community of airports, we're always looking at what's out there and how to improve things. Our organization is part of an international network. We work very closely with colleagues in the United States and around the world, so we're there at the forefront of technologies and innovations that are being developed elsewhere. We're always looking at what we can do to do things better.

The way we're structured, airports have been able to invest $22 billion in their own infrastructure through the use of user fees since airports were transferred in the early 1990s. Airports are able to take advantage of technologies and innovations. Sometimes our partners in government find it a little more difficult because of a strain on resources, as we've been discussing today, but I think it's certainly a priority for everybody in the industry to make sure that we have access to the latest tools and the most effective tools for everybody to do their jobs.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious, as well, about automated baggage screening. At the time I first started flying when I was younger, that was just not part of the process. Now it seems routine. What actually goes on behind the scenes with automated screening of baggage now? It kind of disappears through the little covered window and I don't see it again until I pick it up on the carousel. Could you describe the actual process that an airport would go through in terms of screening the bags that we drop off?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

That's probably most appropriate for my colleagues at CATSA to respond to.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Of course.

[Neil Parry]

All checked baggage or all hold baggage from passengers is screened 100%. In the process you're referring to, for the most part, especially at the larger airports, the bag is inducted into the airport's belt system. You see it go down into the basement. That's where it all happens. That bag makes its way to CATSA screening technology. We screen using varieties of the best available technologies. These technologies are regulated by Transport Canada and then tested and trialled by us in a lab and then live trial-tested before they ever make their way into an airport to meet both the regulatory requirements and our operational standards.

We integrate that equipment into the airport's conveyor systems, and those bags are presented. We do different types of screening. Bags that are flagged may be physically searched by screening officers, and other additional screening procedures may be applied to them. Once that bag is cleared, it makes its way back or continues along its way in the airport's conveyor system. They can explain better how that gets onto the the aircraft. If the bag is not cleared, then it does not go into that conveyor.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Just to shift gears a little bit, I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have twenty seconds—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Oh, that's fine. I think I'll pass on my final 20 seconds. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I think there's something we need to establish. The question comes up from a variety of sources, but the answer is as follows. The government has no plans to privatize airports. Could you say that en français, s'il vous plaît, Monsieur Iacono?

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

We do not intend to privatize airports, rest assured, dear colleagues.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There. So now, with that—

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

Who said that?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I did, just now.

The issue of safety management systems has come up quite often in our studies of various transport modes. There are some niggling suspicions about the efficacy of those, particularly when it comes to Transport Canada audits versus on-the-ground inspections of what is going on, which is a real issue in the railways, for instance.

What about your safety management system or your security management system in Toronto? Are you subject to audits and on-the-ground inspections and, if so, in approximately what balance?

[Jennifer Sullivan]

Yes, we are subject to both. We have quite a number of Transport Canada inspectors on the security side who are on site 24-7 doing inspections, so these are ad hoc and random. There are also preplanned annual inspections, and I can leave it to Ms. Kinney to describe those better. We also have regular annualized audits, in addition to those random inspections.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Within that, there's a robust whistle-blower protection policy?

[Jennifer Sullivan]

There is. We have a non-punitive reporting policy at the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. All airports are required to have one.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Ms. Kinney, this would probably be a question for both of you. We've mentioned radicalization as the most recent example of a flag that was raised, but there must be others. I'm thinking of somebody who's gone through discipline, perhaps somewhat harsh, or issues of workplace harassment. Are there other flags where you would want to go back and recheck somebody's suitability for being in a secure area?

[Laureen Kinney]

That is exactly the case. Multiple kinds of situations can come up, whether they start from whatever workplace issues may be going on, whether they're disciplinary with a supervisor or inter-employee debates and issues. We have had cases where arguments and/or events occurred that raised questions in terms of what people might have said during the heat of the moment, for example. That raises a flag in some cases, and has come to us. We've had some cases where someone may have seemed disturbed and not necessarily in a state of being able to apply security with provisions and to be confidently allowed access to the security zone. That's very rare, but it has happened in one or two cases.

Minor situations could arise in the workplace that raise a question. Somebody might have made a reference, or written something. It might have been a joke, or it might not, but questions are raised, so they are reported and they are all looked at. Then we have an advisory committee that brings together expertise—in some cases, it might be the RCMP and others—to give us a sense of how seriously they may see such an incident, or whether it's more like a routine type of operation.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Ms. Sullivan, is there an employee assistance program? Let's say somebody is subject to bouts of depression, or things that could impact on their ability to do their job, not necessarily presenting a security risk, but not necessarily doing as much as they should to keep an eye on things.

[Jennifer Sullivan]

The employee assistance program would rest with the individual employer. At Toronto Pearson, over 400 different employers have employees with transportation security clearances. An employee with an issue would go through Air Canada or WestJet or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Would you assess a potential contractor's ability to do their job based on things like the availability of an employee assistance program?

[Jennifer Sullivan]

Again, a lot of the employers are not directly contracted with the airport authority. They may be contracted to other agencies, so we don't control those relationships.