Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 4 - Evidence, November 25, 2002
OTTAWA, Monday, November 25, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 5:05 p.m. to examine and report on the need for a national security policy for Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today, we continue our study on the need for a national security policy by looking at the issue of airport security.
My name is Colin Kenny. I am a senator from Ontario, and I chair the committee.
On my immediate right is our deputy chair, the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Mike Forrestall. After an early career as a journalist with the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and as an airline executive, he entered politics and was first elected to the House of Commons in 1965. For more than 37 years, he has served the constituents of Dartmouth, reminding us in particular of the importance of 12 Wing Shearwater. Throughout his parliamentary career, he has followed defence matters, serving on various parliamentary committees, as well as representing Canada at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Let me introduce the other members of our committee.
On my far right is Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick. He holds a bachelor of electrical engineering from the Royal Military College in Kingston, an LL.B. from Queens University and a master of laws from Osgoode Hall. Prior to his appointment to the Senate in 2001, he had a successful career as a private practice attorney. His legal interests include patent and trademark law and intellectual property issues. In the Senate, he has served on the Human Rights Committee and recently travelled to Costa Rica to study the operations of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. He also is an active member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Beside him is Senator Smith, a new member to the committee. During his career as a lawyer, he was a distinguished practitioner of municipal, administrative and regulatory law. At the time of his appointment, he was chairman and partner of Fraser Milner Casgrain, one of Canada's oldest and largest law firms. In the 1970s, he was a member of the Toronto City Council and was appointed deputy mayor in 1976. From 1980 to 1984, he sat in the House of Commons and served as Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism.
Beside him is Senator Atkins from Ontario. Senator Atkins came to the Senate in 1986 with a strong background in the field of communications. He also served as an adviser to former Premier Davis of Ontario. A graduate of economics from Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, he received an honorary doctorate in civil law in 2000 from his alma mater. During his time as a senator, he has concerned himself with a number of education and poverty issues; as well, he has championed the cause of the Canadian Merchant Navy veterans. Currently he serves as chair of the Senate Conservative Caucus and deputy chair of Internal Economy Committee and their budget subcommittee.
Beside him is Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia. An accomplished educator, she also has an extensive record of community involvement. She has served as vice-chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission and is chair of the board of referees for the Halifax region of Human Resources Development Canada. In addition to serving on our committee, she is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs that recently released a landmark report on health care. She is an active participant in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and has just returned from meetings in Istanbul.
On my far left is Senator Jack Wiebe from Saskatchewan. He is one of Saskatchewan's leading citizens. He has been a highly successful farmer, as well as a member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. In 1994, he became the first farmer to be appointed lieutenant-governor of the province in many years. He has had a strong interest in the Reserves and served as Saskatchewan chair of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.
Beside him is Senator Banks, who is well-known to Canadians as one of our most accomplished and versatile entertainers and an international standard bearer for Canadian culture. A Juno-award-winning musician, Senator Banks has achieved national and international renown as a conductor or music director for many signature events, such as the opening ceremonies for the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. He is a resident of Edmonton, and a strong supporter of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
Our committee is the first permanent Senate committee with a mandate to examine subjects of security and defence. Over the past 16 months, we have concluded a seven-month study of major issues facing Canada, and we produced a report entitled ``Canadian Security and Military Preparedness.'' We have also issued a report on coastal defence entitled ``Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility,'' and during the past month, our committee has released a report entitled ``For an extra 130 bucks... Update on Canada's Military Crisis, A View From the Bottom Up.''
The Senate has now asked our committee to examine the need for a national security policy, and today we focus on airport security. So far, our committee has visited airports in Montreal and Vancouver, and held hearings on this subject in Toronto in June and in Ottawa in August.
Before I ask our witnesses to come forward, we have a short presentation we would like to make. I would like to invite Mr. Dan Turner to come before the committee, please.
Dan, welcome. On behalf of the committee, I should like to present you with the Queen's Jubilee Medal for the work you have done for the committee. It is greatly appreciated. To go with it, we have a certificate and an instruction booklet on how to wear the medal. Congratulations, and well done.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: The committee appreciates your work greatly and wants very much to honour you in this regard.
Mr. Dan Turner: This is my first award since high school, sir.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: I invite the witnesses to the table now.
(Jacques Duchesneau, sworn)
(Mike Baker, sworn)
(Mark Duncan, sworn)
The Chairman: Welcome, gentlemen. Our first witness is Mr. Jacques Duchesneau, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
In response to the events of 9/11, the federal government established CATSA on April 1 of this year, with the mandate to deliver screening services at 89 designated airports, and to be responsible for explosive detection equipment and the operation of the air marshal program. On November 5, two new responsibilities were added, the pass system for employees at airports and the screening of non-passengers entering restricted areas.
I should like to welcome you both.
Please introduce your colleague to us, and then the floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Jacques Duchesneau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: I should like to introduce Mr. Mark Duncan, the Vice President of Operations with CATSA, and Mr. Mike Baker, Vice President of Corporate Management. Both Mr. Duncan and Mr. Baker are experienced people, with considerable knowledge of air transportation in Canada, having been with Transport Canada for, together, over 60 years.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for inviting us here today. I would like to congratulate the Chair and members of this committee for their hard work on addressing air security issues.
In fact, I was reviewing some of the recommendations contained in your June 2000 report, specifically the recommendation for spot searches of persons belonging to the airport community when entering a restricted area. I am pleased to note that this responsibility was recently assigned to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) by the Minister of Transport. CATSA has begun consultations with stakeholders on this issue. I am convinced we all share the same goal, to have the best and most secure air transportation system in the world, one that ensures the safety of our fellow Canadians.
I have only recently been named President and CEO of CATSA. However, the Authority began its operations in April of this year. Indeed, CATSA was ably led from its early days by its Chairman, Brian Flemming. He had the massive responsibility of starting a new Crown Corporation from scratch. He had to find office space, hire staff and immediately lay CATSA's foundation so it could begin carrying out its mandate. It is a tribute to Mr. Flemming that we have come so far in such a short time, and I would like to thank him for putting in place the professional organization that is represented before you today.
I wish to stress that Canada has one of the best civil aviation systems in the world, with an enviable record for safety and security. CATSA is building upon the measures already taken by Transport Canada, and our aviation industry partners.
The events of September 11, 2001 forced all countries to reassess their air security measures and to provide more comprehensive and far-reaching security initiatives. For example, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada immediately responded by providing an initial investment of $55.7 million for the purchase of Explosive Detection Systems for deployment at airports; $35 million over two years to airlines to help cover the costs of security modifications to existing aircrafts; $20 million for heightened policing and security at airports; $10 million to implement immediate improvements to screening practices; and armed RCMP officers on all flights to Reagan National Airport. CATSA will continue to build upon the actions already taken.
Security experts say no single security measure is foolproof because different areas of an airport are vulnerable to different risks. You have heard this throughout your deliberations as well. And we can never eliminate the possibility of surprise or terrorist attack, particularly in a society that's as open, as free and as diverse as that which we enjoy in Canada. But I believe that with CATSA's mandate, we can significantly reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attack over time. Indeed, that mandate was recently expanded to include the development of an enhanced National Pass System and Expanded Screening for Airport Personnel.
Before elaborating on these two new responsibilities, I think it would be useful if I spent a few minutes addressing CATSA's original mandate and highlighting some of the progress we have made.
[English]
CATSA is responsible for the effective and efficient delivery of screening services at 89 designated airports, specifically, pre-board screening of passengers and their belongings. Prior to September 11, 2001, pre-board screening, or PBS as we call it, was the responsibility of the airlines. They contracted with private sector service companies to provide passenger screenings at airports.
Since CATSA's inception, we have been reimbursing airlines for the cost of PBS. This new funding represents a 78 per cent increase over the airlines' expenditure last year.
In preparation for assuming full responsibility for PBS on December 31, 2002, CATSA introduced a program to upgrade the training of all 3,000 screeners across the country. This training will be complete in a matter of weeks. In addition, CATSA had devised a new, multilevel training and certification program for all screeners. This program will be implemented beginning January 1, 2003.
The second part of our mandate is the acquisition, deployment, operation and maintenance of explosives detection systems at airports. In addition to deploying and installing Transport Canada's initial $55-million investment, CATSA is in the process of deploying and installing another $50 million in explosives detection systems at all of our major airports. This initial investment of over $100 million is part of the Government of Canada's $1 billion commitment for explosives detection systems over five years. Indeed, honourable senators may have seen some of this equipment in their travels.
At most pre-board screening sites in Canada, machines that can detect trace elements of various explosives have been installed. As well, hold baggage EDS systems have been installed at a number of airports. In order to facilitate the continuous deployment of these machines into complex baggage systems at airports, CATSA has established guidelines for their layout and installation. Every effort is being made to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization standards by January 1, 2006.
The third aspect of our mandate is the federal contributions for airport policing. CATSA is currently entering into agreements with selected airports, under which CATSA will make contributions towards the cost of aviation security- related policing.
Fourth, the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program: In cooperation with the RCMP and Transport Canada, CATSA serves as the program manager for the Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program. This program was introduced to cover all flights to Reagan International Airport and has since been expanded to cover, based upon risk assessment, other domestic, transborder or international flights.
Significant progress has been made in expanding this program, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of 2004.
As program manager, CATSA is responsible for funding, auditing, evaluating and reporting on the program. Those four areas of responsibility constitute the major element of CATSA's mandate, as outlined in the legislation.
I would now like to turn briefly to the two new responsibilities recently assigned to CATSA by the Minister of Transport, the Honourable David Collenette, to enhance air transport security.
As I indicated earlier, CATSA is responsible for creating and implementing a system for the random screening of non-passengers accessing restricted areas through non-screening points at major Canadian airports. The screening will apply to individuals such as airline personnel, airport employees, refuelers, painters and maintenance personnel. CATSA's role will include the administration of the program, training of screening personnel, and the purchase, deployment, operation and maintenance of all screening equipment. CATSA will work with Transport Canada and industry stakeholders to establish the parameters of this enhanced system before implementing the program.
The second new responsibility assigned to CATSA is the creation and implementation of an enhanced restricted area pass system for non-passengers that will control access to restricted areas at major Canadian airports. This will include the use of a databank supporting the issuance, verification, cancellation and tracking of restricted area passes. The program will incorporate the use of biometrics, which I understand has been of interest to this committee.
Currently, passes are issued by individual airport authorities on the approval of Transport Canada, following extensive background checks conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Before concluding my remarks, I understand that honourable senators wanted me to address the issue of the air traveller security charge. As you know, CATSA neither sets, administers nor collects the charge. Our funding comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Indeed, the Minister of Finance recently announced his intention to seek submissions from interested parties about the charge. This will be part of his budget consultations. For those reasons, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. As for future responsibilities of CATSA, that is a policy decision to be made by the Minister of Transport. We are working to implement the roles that we have within the current federal budget allocation. We shall continue to work closely with Transport Canada to adapt to a changing environment.
[Translation]
We will be pleased, my colleagues and I, to answer the questions you may have on CATSA's mandate or on its present or future plans.
[English]
The Chairman: As for your last comment, as to whether or not it is appropriate to comment on the air traveller security charge, I think you will find the committee will expect you to comment on parts of that. We will get to that in the questioning.
Senator Banks: Given that the Minister of Finance has asked people for comments on everything under the sun to do with the budget, as he does every year, could you tell us the provenance of the idea that it would be inappropriate for you to talk to us about a charge that indirectly provides the money your agency spends? This is not a trial. It is not as though there were a trial and some impropriety would occur if you answer our questions about the money — because we do, as you pointed out, expect to ask you, and get answers, about that.
Mr. Duchesneau: I understand your point, senator, but you know, sir, that CATSA received its budget from the government. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the charge, the way it is set, or the way it is collected. It is not part of our mandate. Our mandate is to make sure that we have money and my mandate is quite clear: make sure that Canadians can fly in Canada with all appropriate security measures surrounding their flights.
I think the best person to answer that question is the Minister of Finance himself. Like I said, CATSA had nothing to do with setting the charge. We are only there to make sure that security measures are implemented.
Senator Banks: One of the things about which we are concerned, of course, is an eventual ability to determine both the money that is being collected from travellers every time they get on an airplane and the money that is being spent. There is supposed, in the way it was first presented to the Canadian public, to be a relationship between those two things. I know that the government does not like dedicated taxes. I know that this is not a tax, and I know that it goes into the top of the hopper. I know that you get your money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; however, there was an expectation presented to Canadians and we understand that there is a relationship between those two things.
Let me put the question in a different way. The last budget earmarked $2.2 million for these kinds of security matters. From that money, has your agency received the kind of money that it needs to do its job? Are you satisfied with the money that you are getting? I would appreciate it if, at least parenthetically, when you answer that question and talk about how you apply for the money and who decides whether you get it, if you would explain to us the nature of the relationship among you, the Department of Transport, and the money being spent. The Department of Transport has already spent some money on these matters, and so have you.
Where is the division? Where is the overlap? Are we getting the best bang for the buck, or are we spinning our wheels?
Mr. Duchesneau: We presented a five-year corporate plan to the minister. In those five years, we needed a budget of $2.2 billion. In the first year, the budget was $416 million. I can tell the committee today that we will be spending only $323 million this year, some of it for training and also the cost of pre-board screening. The major part of it is for equipment. However, on a five-year term, we will be spending the $2.2 billion. Your question was: Do we have enough money today? I can say that we have enough money to do a very complete security system for Canadian passengers.
Senator Banks: Just speaking colloquially, are you spending less money than you asked for because you could not get what you asked for, or because you do not have the means in place for properly spending that money?
Mr. Duchesneau: Our job, even though we have a budget, is to manage this properly. We went into buying new equipment. We did that. All airports are covered, and Mark Duncan will be able to talk about that if you have any specific questions. No, I think with $323 million this year, we could cover all specific needs and cover our mandate properly.
Senator Banks: With respect to the way that is being done, do you believe that Canadian travellers — and we are frequent Canadian travellers — are entitled to make informed decisions as to how they will travel, and that they can do that best if they are well informed about the nature of security at their airports and in their airplanes?
Mr. Duchesneau: You must have seen in my resume that I was a former chief of police. I think we need to be transparent. People need to know what we do with their money, but at the same time, we cannot give information that would inform the bad guys in order to counterattack us. I think people are well informed. I think we need to be very transparent. We have the Minister of Transport looking at what we are doing. We have the audit committee. We have the board of directors. The board of directors of CATSA, when you put them all together, have over 300 years of experience in transportation. I am telling you, I met my board last week and they can sure ask the right questions. They are very professional people, and I think everyone, from the minister down to the last employee at CATSA, we all want to have a very effective air transportation system.
I think the message, when I met the minister, was quite clear: Make sure that Canadian citizens feel safe, like they would not have any problem travelling, so we are working on the fear of flying. I think that should not be what people think when they board a plane. We are working on that. I am telling you, I have compared systems from different countries in the world, and I can assure you that we have a very good air transportation security system.
Senator Banks: You are convinced that things are in place that the bad guys do not know about?
Mr. Duchesneau: I hope so. I hope so. When you are in a position like that, you need to think, not like a security expert, but you need to think like a terrorist. What we are implementing today, we will need to improve as we move along in 2003. It is always like that. We always need to be one step ahead of terrorists. What we are showing has to deter any people who have bad intentions.
Senator Banks: All passengers who get on an airplane are searched first, sometimes twice, sometimes three times, and must present identification, which is the equivalent of an airside pass in that circumstance. You mentioned in your opening remarks that we had asked for spot checks of other airside folks. I think we complained about the fact that all passengers are screened and searched and that other airside personnel generally are not. In fact, I think we said that if they are, it is on a random basis and that is not good enough.
You have referred to the fact that that duty has now been added to your responsibilities, that is to say, the security in respect of airside personnel, groomers, refuelling technicians, baggage handlers and the like, who have at least equal, and in some respects more opportunity, if they were bad guys, to have access to airplanes and things that happen past the security perimeter.
To what extent will that happen? What proportion of airside personnel will be searched when they come to work in the same way that I am searched when I get on an airplane?
Mr. Duchesneau: That is a very good question, but at the same time, very hard to answer.
Senator Banks: No, it is not. You could say ``All of them.'' That would be a good answer.
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes. Once again, if we talk about strategy, we can search every employee for three days and then decide not to do it for a couple of days. That is part of the strategy. Telling a person that they will be searched once a month, if I search you today, does it mean that you are free for 30 other days remaining in the month?
I think random checking has its benefits. We need to not forget the fact that it is an industry. We need to make sure that this industry will continue to do its business. We can do checks of every employee every day, but this has a cost to it, so we need to have a very balanced approach.
Senator Banks: We are not talking about the cost of searching every passenger. Nobody said ``How much will that cost?'' We just said we have to do it, whatever the cost is, and here is how we will pay for it.
Would you agree, then, that random searches of passengers on airplanes without their knowing when it will happen would be a good idea and an acceptable level of security?
Mr. Duchesneau: It is much easier for passengers because they come from one point to another. They come from the kiosk when they come into the airport. They go through pre-board screening. Then they board the plane, whereas an employee has to move around in the airport or airport territory. What I am saying is that we are starting our consultation with airport authorities and airline companies. We just want to make sure that we will have a balanced approach, make sure that we will have a safer place.
As we move along, we will be improving. It does not mean that in one year from now we might be searching 100 per cent, or maybe there is no need for that. Once again, we might be sending the wrong message to passengers if we put in so much security that people, before boarding the plane, will claim maybe it is too dangerous. When I say we need a balanced approach, that is exactly what I am saying. We need to work with our partners, our stakeholders, to make sure that we will give, once again, the best security possible.
Senator Forrestall: I do not know much more now than I knew 15 minutes ago. You think that it is a matter of some lightness, that it is not deadly serious.
We want to know — and the public wants to know — whether or not the money being collected is being spent on security. How will we find that out?
Mr. Duchesneau: I know that Minister Collenette will be here next week and would be the right person to answer that question, since he was part of the discussion in deciding the budget for CATSA.
Senator Forrestall: Do you know how many people fly annually in this country?
Mr. Duchesneau: About 80 million people.
Senator Forrestall: How many of those are return trips?
Mr. Mark Duncan, Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: There are 80 million, enplaning and debarking. There are 80 million trips, which would be the best way of answering that.
Senator Forrestall: How much money is that?
Mr. Duncan: There are 40 million departures. In the airport business, you traditionally count it on a two-way basis.
Senator Forrestall: Is this just security? How much money do you think is being collected?
Mr. Duchesneau: I am not the right person to answer that question.
Senator Forrestall: You are in the business of making me feel safe. Do not tell me that, in your planning, you do not know how much money is available to you.
Mr. Duchesneau: We presented a five-year plan.
Senator Forrestall: What were the numbers you used in that five-year plan?
Mr. Duchesneau: Some $1.9 billion.
Senator Forrestall: How do you know that you are getting that money and not money out of general revenue?
Mr. Duchesneau: I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Mike Baker, Vice-President, Corporate Management, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Senator, the money is identified in our corporate plan. It goes through that normal process that is reviewed by Treasury Board. Treasury Board then allocates those funds to us on an annual basis. We go back every year with our corporate plan to identify what our requirements are over a five-year period.
Senator Forrestall: Do you foresee an end to the tax, a time when it will not be needed?
Mr. Baker: Again, there is not a direct link from our point of view. We identify the expenses. The revenue is under the purview of the Minister of Finance. It is not under our purview.
Senator Forrestall: The bulk of your spending has been on hardware and software.
Mr. Duchesneau: Equipment and personnel.
Senator Forrestall: You did not say that. You said the bulk of your expenditures so far have been on equipment.
Mr. Duchesneau: Equipment and personnel.
Senator Forrestall: You used the two.
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: What else would you spend it on?
Mr. Duchesneau: I can go through the documents here. Roughly $128 million is for personnel and training; EDS equipment is $115 million; and administration, once again, the Canadian Carrier Protective Program, altogether it comes up to $323 million for this year.
Senator Forrestall: Will this be an average year?
Mr. Duchesneau: Roughly $420 million.
Senator Forrestall: Would that be an average year?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Mr. Baker: It can vary, senator.
Senator Forrestall: What happens to the other $600 million? Why is it so difficult for you to understand what I am trying to get at? People want to know where the money is going. It costs a lot of money to take a wife and three kids somewhere. All of a sudden, a plane ticket is irrelevant. What happens to the other $600 million that we are collecting?
Mr. Duchesneau: Once again, it is in our corporate plan. I hate to come back with the same answer. I just do not want you to get you mad about that.
Senator Forrestall: I will not pressure you with respect to that. I hope you get a little bolder as years go by and as you become more confident in your activities.
On page 4 there is set out an initial investment of $55.7 million for the purchase of explosive detection systems for deployment by the airports. Can you tell us where these are now located? Perhaps I might preface that by asking this: Can you describe to me what constitutes a major airport in Canada?
Mr. Duncan: I guess a major airport — and I am sure that in your visits to Montreal and Vancouver — we have nine that are termed as ``class 1'' airports. Those are the major international airports.
Senator Forrestall: Is that between Montreal and Vancouver?
Mr. Duncan: That is correct.
Senator Forrestall: There is Halifax and Vancouver, or is it Montreal and Vancouver?
Mr. Duncan: There are nine. I can list them if you want. They are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Halifax, Montreal, Mirabel and Ottawa.
Senator Forrestall: You lost me at seven.
Mr. Duncan: Then there are class 2 airports.
Senator Forrestall: At what time might you describe Moncton as a major airport?
Mr. Duncan: Moncton would be classified, in the Transport Canada classification of airports, as a class 2 airport based on traffic volume, based on a capital of a province. There are basically 29 airports in the class 1 and class 2 categories.
Senator Forrestall: It has nothing to do with perceived risk but, rather, volume.
Mr. Duncan: All of those are contributing factors.
Senator Forrestall: I would sort of hope so.
With regard to the acquisition, deployment, operation and maintenance of explosive detection systems at airports, can you tell me how many of these principal airports, and any others, have explosive detection systems in place today?
Mr. Duchesneau: I did not get your question, sir. I am sorry.
Senator Forrestall: In addition to all the other stuff that you have purchased, how many Canadian airports have in place explosive detection devices?
Mr. Duchesneau: Altogether, once again —
Senator Forrestall: Most of them, all of them?
Mr. Duchesneau: I would say most of them. Do you think it could be detrimental to airport security as a whole to mention that?
Senator Forrestall: I do not know. You are taking away my nail clippers now, so I do not know what you will be doing next. You told us we could have them and now you have taken them away.
My point is this: Within a year or two, you will have achieved the bulk of your capital acquisitions that will be in place. What will happen then to all this money we are collecting?
Mr. Duchesneau: Once again, we are buying equipment, depending on the threat assessment, depending on what is happening in the next year. We made our projection in our corporate plan for the next five years, asking for $1.9 billion.
Senator Forrestall: Over the five years?
Mr. Duchesneau: Over the five years.
Senator Forrestall: And that, you presume, will cover things?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes. Every year we are just making sure that those numbers are very accurate.
We are preparing right now the numbers for next year's corporate plan. So we revise and we just go through what we already spent and what we should be spending in the next year.
Senator Forrestall: So you will be revising.
Mr. Duchesneau: Sure.
Senator Forrestall: Presumably, air passenger numbers will increase.
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: So will this in excess of $1 billion you are collecting now increase?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: However, in your plan, you are only budgeting for $2 billion in expenditures. Presumably, we will hit that in two-and-a-half years. What will you do with the revenues for the next two-and-a-half years? Will that go back into general revenues to pay for health care?
Mr. Baker: That is over a five-year period, senator.
Senator Forrestall: That makes it worse.
Mr. Baker: The money we are estimating, the $1.9 billion, is to cover costs for the five-year period. When we look into the future, what you are looking at is eventually you will get into replacement. The lifespan on some of this equipment is five to seven years. Also, you will need funds for new technology that has been identified.
That is why we will look at this. When we do our corporate plan every year, we will take a look and identify what our expenses are. If we do not need funds, I can assure you we will be identifying only what we require.
Senator Forrestall: You, presumably, would say at some point to the minister, ``Look, you can reduce that money because we are not spending it, and we have no need for it''?
Mr. Baker: The Minister of Transport will be the first one to ask that question. He will be the one asking us if we need the funds.
Senator Forrestall: You would not tell him? You would wait until he asks you?
Mr. Baker: He will be the one asking us, and we would be the ones identifying it.
Senator Forrestall: Will you do me a favour? When you hit that point, will you tell him? Do not wait for him to ask.
Mr. Baker: You can be assured of that, Senator.
The Chairman: Just to clarify a point that has come up.
If I understood you correctly, the 80 million departures and arrivals work out to 40 million times 12?
Mr. Duncan: Forty million enplanements.
The Chairman: The total revenue could be in the area of 40 million times 12, or $480 million?
Mr. Duncan: I think that would be correct. I am looking across to Mike.
Senator Banks: Are we close? Is that the ballpark?
Mr. Duncan: That is the ballpark.
The Chairman: I wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Duncan: I think you have seen news media reports that in actual fact, the revenues were not as high as expected.
[Translation]
Senator Day: Mr. Duchesneau, I have a few questions for clarification on your outstanding presentation. Mr. Baker or Mr. Duncan can answer, whoever you decide will give the answer.
[English]
Senator Day: Page 6 of your report: When you talk about the explosive detection systems, is that the swipe system we see, as passengers, testing for explosives?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. That would be on the pre-board screening sequence. That is called a trace machine. That is an explosive detection device. If you are chosen, and that small swab is taken and is put in the machine, it is about a 30- second dwell time, and it will analyze for any trace of explosives.
Senator Day: Luckily I have not had a false positive yet, but a colleague of mine did at the Ottawa airport this morning. That is always a fun time. I am sure it is better to have the odd false positive than the other way around. We understand the security issues, and we are supportive. I think most travellers are, quite frankly. I find people to be much more tolerant of the delays than previously. We compliment you on the work you are doing.
In the next paragraph, it talks about hold baggage. Would that be baggage that I check in and is being sent down below somewhere? That is what I assumed that was.
The explosive detection system that you have there, is that the same kind of manual swiping system, or is that a full baggage pass-through type system?
Mr. Duncan: Our answer on that is, we have multi-level types of systems. In actual fact, depending on the type of airport, the volume of traffic, we will have a slightly different solution. Again, also, depending on the particular airport, the configuration of the airport. One of the complexities of this program, to deliver this rapidly, is to put it into a system, again, to support the industry, and also to recognize that airports are always in some form of construction.
Obviously, it is easier to put it in when it is in the planning stage as opposed to a retrofit. We have a multi-level type of system, depending on the airport.
Senator Day: If an airport were to implement a system whereby, before you check your bag, you have to go through security with your bags, would that be a decision that you would make for a particular airport, or would that be a decision you would make in conjunction with the particular airport in Canada, or would they make that decision?
Mr. Duncan: We would be doing that in conjunction with the airport.
Senator Day: Are there any plans to do that kind of thing in Canada?
Mr. Duncan: You have seen it in some airports.
Senator Day: Not in Canada.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, you have. If you have been through Halifax and gone to the United States, you might have seen that.
Senator Day: Thank you.
You indicate at the bottom of page 6, every effort is being made to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization standards by 2006.
Could we have a copy of those standards that you are trying to get to in the next four years? Could you make those available to us, and could you tell us where you are behind and why it will take you that long to get to those international standards?
Mr. Duchesneau: You mean the ICAO standards?
Senator Day: Yes.
Mr. Duncan: ICAO annex 17 is a generally accepted protocol between countries, and certainly we could make that available.
Senator Day: That would be appreciated. Maybe we could have your comment on where we are behind and why it will take so long to get to these international standards? Would you be able to do that?
Mr. Duncan: I think what we have said is, we will be meeting the international — it is an agreed date between countries.
Senator Day: Am I reading too much into the words, ``every effort is being made to''?
Mr. Duchesneau: We are making the effort, depending on many other aspects that we have to deal with.
Senator Day: Mr. Duchesneau, I am reading into that that you are not there now, that you have some challenges in getting there in four years. What I would like to know is, can you tell us what those challenges are and what we have to do to get there?
Mr. Duchesneau: We asked a consultant firm to look at that in different parts of the world, and it seems we are way ahead of most of the countries. There are reasons.
Are the machines available? There are only a few companies in the world that can produce those machines. That is one aspect. Also, there are other aspects we need to look at. It is not because our efforts are not there. We are putting in all the efforts, but we are not — if we were building those machines, maybe we could do it faster, but that is one problem that we need to face.
Senator Day: Supply of the equipment to meet the standard is one of your hindrances.
Are there any others? If you want to tell me about those when you give me the list, and I can look at it and see what the standards are, that would be fine. We are just looking for clarification.
Mr. Duchesneau: I will give you the information on that, senator.
Senator Day: Thank you. The next issue that follows from that is number 3 in your presentation, page 7, where you talk about selected airports. You are entering into agreements with the airports whereby the cost of aviation security policing would be the responsibility of the airport, but you would be providing a financial contribution. Is that the way I read that?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Senator Day: Who sets the standards as to what these policemen and women are supposed to be doing at the airport?
Mr. Duchesneau: Transport Canada, through a threat assessment. They are the ones who set the standards.
Senator Day: Is there some published document that you could make available to us so we could see the standards you are expecting, and then you give them money to achieve those standards?
Mr. Duchesneau: The best witness to answer that question would be Mr. Elliott. I understand he is here Wednesday. He is the ADM responsible for setting the standards.
Senator Day: Who tells you what contribution you should be making?
Mr. Duchesneau: Transport.
Senator Day: Transport Canada says, ``CATSA, pay X dollars to this airport, and they will do some policing for you''?
Mr. Duchesneau: According to threat assessment, yes.
Senator Day: You do not know precisely what they are doing, but you know the department is telling you to pay some dollars; is that correct?
Mr. Duchesneau: Correct.
Senator Day: The issue of non-passengers who have access to aircraft was one of the added responsibilities.
We were told that was the responsibility for the screening of non-passengers entering restricted areas at the airport, but your comment at page 8, under number 5, is that CATSA is responsible for developing and implementing a system for random screening. Who decided it would be random?
Mr. Duchesneau: We just started the consultation process with our stakeholders — airports and airline companies. We should have the results of that in a couple of months. We need to set those standards together.
Senator Day: Transport Canada asked you to do screening of non-passengers.
Mr. Duchesneau: They gave us the mandate and we are just starting the consultation process.
Senator Day: Did Transport Canada say that that screening should be random?
Mr. Duchesneau: No. We just had the two mandates, as I said, creating and implementing a system for the random screening of non-passengers.
Senator Day: Transport Canada told you it should be a random system?
Mr. Duchesneau: Thus far, but we just started the consultation process. My job is to ensure that I will inform the minister on things that we should be doing to improve security. Let us start the consultation process and, perhaps, it will turn out differently.
Senator Day: When Transport Canada asked you to take on this new responsibility, did they tell you that it should be a random-type screening?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, they did.
Senator Wiebe: Going back to your answer to Senator Day regarding the levels of policing at various airports, as determined by a risk assessment, it is my understanding that you and your agency are responsible for the security of the airports. If there is a risk assessment, which I am sure is done by your agency, why then can you not determine what level of funding should be paid to the airport, rather than the Minister of Transport?
Mr. Baker: When this was first identified, the Minister of Transport identified that we should be involved in aviation-related costs. It was a minimal program to help the airports recover some of the costs, but it was strictly related to what we called ``aviation-related policing costs.'' It does not include all policing costs at the airport. We went through, and based on the amount of risk, which was one factor that we looked at in conjunction with Transport Canada, we attempted to come up with what we would determine as being the financial contribution at each of these airports. Does it cover all costs? No. It is a minimal program to help them in relation to these costs that they are incurring. That is how it was established.
Senator Wiebe: Those moneys, then, come from other than the $12 assessment fee?
Mr. Baker: No, it comes from within that program as well, senator.
Senator Wiebe: If you do a risk assessment, you understand that there should be a higher level of policing at airport B and you recommend further funds be allocated, what happens if the minister says no? If that is the outcome, what is the point of your agency? Do you people not run that part of the security?
Mr. Duchesneau: Policy is made by Transport Canada.
Senator Wiebe: The thing that bothers me is that policy by Transport Canada says that yes, according to risk assessment there should be a certain level of policing at airports. That policy has been made. Why, then, should you have to go back to the minister and ask for funding that goes to airport B? Why do you not have the authority to make that part of your budget?
Mr. Baker: First, the intelligence issue regarding all this information rests with Transport Canada. The regulator is Transport Canada. They set the standard, based on the time that a police officer may need to respond to the areas that we are funding or helping to fund. Are we funding all of them? No. That is the whole thing, that the airports are still involved; they are providing funding and we are providing funding. It was never intended to cover all the costs.
From a regulatory point of view, Transport Canada stands right up. It is their responsibility to identify what are the requirements. In our program, we help to pay for some of it, but the airports are still involved themselves as well.
Senator Wiebe: Do you not do the risk assessment?
Mr. Duchesneau: We do not have the means. Transport Canada does the assessment because they have the intelligence. We do not do any intelligence investigation. It is done by Transport Canada, with the RCMP and CSIS. We are not equipped and it is not in our mandate to do that. To evaluate a threat, you need the equipment and the tools, which we do not have.
Senator Wiebe: When it comes to determining what level of training screeners need, is that decision made by Transport Canada or by you people?
Mr. Duchesneau: We make that decision.
Senator Wiebe: What is the difference?
Mr. Duchesneau: It is totally different. We have the means to do training. We know exactly what our standing and operating procedures are, so we train people accordingly. However, when it is time to make a threat assessment, we need intelligence to do that. It is not in our mandate to do intelligence.
Senator Day: Are you able to share with us what type of randomness you have decided to implement in your screening of non-passengers?
Mr. Duchesneau: It is part of the strategy, and it is in CATSA's act that I cannot discuss such things.
Senator Banks: What does the Parliament of Canada Act say about that?
The Chairman: We have a ruling that says that a witness who refuses to testify before us may be reported to the Senate and found in contempt.
Mr. Duchesneau: Section 32.2 of the act.
The Chairman: I do not think we have asked you a question just now, sir.
Mr. Duchesneau: Oh, sorry.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Duchesneau, you have been in your job for one month. What are the most immediate challenges that you are facing?
Mr. Duchesneau: Building a team. Come December 31, we have just over 3,000 new personnel who are going through training and will be in airports representing CATSA. When I started building this team, we were about 30, and we are now up to about 75. We are growing. We are facing growing pains and the challenge is there, but I know we can face the challenge.
Senator Cordy: That is a large number of people to bring together in a short period of time.
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, and we will be there December 31.
Senator Cordy: What do you expect the challenges to be for CATSA in the years to come?
Mr. Duchesneau: Always being one step ahead of people who have bad intentions. We need to work. My job in the coming year will be to build bridges with the police community, with the intelligence community, with the airports, with the airline companies, with people at the international level. About two weeks ago, I met with Admiral Loy, who is the president of the Transportation Security Administration in the U.S., and he is facing the same problems. We do not need to make the same mistakes that he is making. By being partners with them, we will learn and we will improve our act quicker.
Senator Cordy: Is there cooperation with other countries, particularly with the United States?
Mr. Duchesneau: When I spoke with him, I saw that he is very open. We have a meeting in January, in Washington, to share the problems that both agencies are facing — his and ours.
Senator Cordy: Five or eight years into the future, what changes will Canadians see when they get to an airport? What changes do you visualize the Canadian public will see when they walk into an airport?
Mr. Duchesneau: The quality of personnel. I think that we have increased the way we are paying them, the way we train them. We have received compliments about our training procedure. As a matter of fact, other agencies here in Ottawa want to go through the same type of training that we are giving. We put a lot of emphasis on customer service. I think we can do this job, because 99.99 per cent of people are law-abiding citizens, and they need to be treated like that. We, like I said, put a lot of emphasis on customer service.
Senator Cordy: You are expecting to be finished by the end of this year?
Mr. Duchesneau: By December 31, but that is the first part of the training. We will also have on-the-job training and a certification process as we go along. It is not just for one time or three days or a week of training, but as they go along, we will improve the training process.
Senator Cordy: So there will be on-the-job refresher courses —
Mr. Duchesneau: On a regular basis.
Senator Cordy: — when something new comes out. Good.
We have all read and heard stories about people who have actually made it onto an airline carrier with something that they should not have had onboard. Do you have infiltration tests at the airport?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes. Presently, Transport Canada does penetration tests, and we are working on having CATSA doing exactly the same thing, mainly to improve, once again, training and to improve the personnel that we are working with.
Senator Cordy: Will the Canadian public get any indication as to the results of the infiltration? I know that you will not say that at such and such an airport it is easier to get through security than at another one, but is there any way that the Canadian public can feel they are getting good value for their money?
Mr. Duchesneau: I can assure you of that. Now, should we be talking about that? That is another question. Like I said, we have many committees. We have the minister's office, Transport Canada, watching what we are doing. The question is: Is it of public interest to show that our system was easily penetrated? That is a very tough question to answer, and I am not so sure that we need to tell the public what the problems are. If we are asked by officials, by the minister, obviously we will tell that, but do we make that public? I am not certain.
Senator Cordy: How much information can Canadians get? I understand there is information that you cannot give out, but is there some way, other than just saying, ``Yes, trust us. Everything is great'' — of giving the public a feeling that, yes, things are much better than they were a year ago?
Mr. Duchesneau: I am a very transparent person, but once again, can we give out our strategies? If I were always speaking with law-abiding citizens, I would not have a problem with that, but it would be very counterproducttive for me to say things that would help other people try to do a crime. I have a problem with that. I always did have a problem with that.
When I was police chief, can you talk about your strategies? No. Part of the system is to have a visible aspect of security and an invisible aspect of it. When you are in a city, you have police officers in uniform and you have detectives in plain clothes doing police work, but we do not tell that; otherwise, it would be counterproductive. It is the same thing with security. I would have a moral problem to say something that could be harming people.
Senator Cordy: In some areas of policing, we have been able to get — I am not talking airports, but Neighbourhood Watch programs or other programs — the public really involved in making sure that their neighbourhoods are safe places. Is there a way to get Canadians involved in making sure that airports and airline carriers are safe places to be?
Mr. Duchesneau: I like that question. I am a firm believer in community policing. The police themselves do not have the means or the budget to make sure that no crimes are committed. That is why we ask the citizens to get involved in policing. It is the same thing at the airport. CATSA alone cannot do a good job if we do not talk with airport authorities, airlines and employees working at the airport. Sometimes they are the eyes of the airport and the eyes of the system. We need to reach out to them and make sure that everyone involved in an airport procedure is there also to make sure that security is at its highest level.
Senator Cordy: How would you go about educating the public?
Mr. Duchesneau: We already did a program called ``The Fly Smart Program.'' I am just learning those as I go along. We had two flyers given to passengers to make sure that they would fly safely by using tips and information that they need to know. As a matter of fact, we will also be doing that in all airports. When passengers are waiting to go through pre-board screening, we will have screens giving them information on how to prepare, to make sure that they are going to go through the pre-board screening faster, and also things that they should not be bringing onboard. We need to inform them, and we will do that. Public affairs in 2003 will be a big agenda item for us. We need to inform people.
Hassles. We need to get rid of hassles when people go through the airport. We need to be firm in what we are doing, but if we can cut all the hassles that are not helpful in doing our job. I think we need to inform people, and that is what we will be doing.
Senator Atkins: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here tonight. Your chair has had quite a challenge since his appointment. This may be a little unfair to ask you at this time, since you have only been here for a short while, but since last April 1, have there been any significant changes in the mandate or in the regulations that have been applied through Transport Canada to make your job better or easier?
Mr. Duchesneau: I can tell you that ever since I got there, they were more than supportive. I think the evidence of that is that the two people surrounding me today were two of the best employees of Transport Canada, and they were given to us. Ever since I got there, every time I asked for something, they were very supportive and helpful. I know, because I spoke with him, that the minister wants CATSA to be there and do the best job there is.
Senator Atkins: What about the airlines?
Mr. Duchesneau: I had a meeting with Air Canada yesterday. They are also very open. It is in their own interest. We want to show that it is safe to fly Canadian airlines. They are very helpful. The message is, ``Help us help you.'' I think they got the message.
Senator Atkins: What about the local airport authorities — for example, Pearson?
Mr. Duchesneau: Very good. I spent the last two weeks with them, one week in Salt Lake City for an international conference and last week with ATAC in Calgary. I have good contacts, and I am starting to visit all major airports first and then all 89 airports to make sure that we reach out to the operators of these airports.
Senator Atkins: Does CATSA have any input into the development of the new construction of airport terminals?
Mr. Duncan: Certainly for the installation of the multi-level systems, we have worked with a major engineering firm that we have onboard to work with us, and we are working with the airports on those guidelines as they construct.
Senator Atkins: You are satisfied that the end product will be state of the art?
Mr. Duncan: State of the art. One of the issues, as was discussed earlier, is that we are also taking a look at the technology continuously, because we have to ensure that when an installation occurs, we are employing the best technology. We work closely with the United States. We are also working closely with the airports and the airlines.
Senator Atkins: You said that you have been working with the airlines. We had an airline flight attendant appear before us last week who made the case that the airline attendants' procedures have not changed since 9/11, and they are getting no training. She even admitted that she does not have the same comfort in going to work and getting on an aircraft as she used to have. Who is responsible for that? Is that Transport Canada or is that you? It is a security question.
Mr. Duchesneau: The best witness to answer that question would be Mr. Elliott when he comes here Wednesday. He is in charge of making those policies.
Senator Atkins: Do you believe that air marshals should be identified to the crews?
Mr. Duchesneau: No, not at all. It is a covert operation and it is good that it is like that.
Senator Atkins: If you talk to the people who are flying these aircraft —
Mr. Duchesneau: The captain knows. The captain is informed.
Senator Atkins: The captain is locked up front. He cannot do much if something happens in the cabin and the aircrew does not know what is going on. There is a clear conflict here, by the way, in terms of this issue.
Mr. Duchesneau: My opinion on that is the more we talk about it, the less effective it is.
Senator Atkins: That gets to your point on transparency.
Mr. Duchesneau: I do not have a problem being transparent. I can be transparent on the good things. There are things that we cannot tell.
I am tortured here today, because there are things that I would like to tell, but I cannot. I think I would not be fulfilling my mandate in talking about things that could harm the system.
Senator Forrestall: Do not tantalize us, please.
Mr. Duchesneau: No.
Senator Atkins: Who would be responsible for training airline flight attendants in the new world of security?
Mr. Duchesneau: Transport Canada can issue policies on that. It is the airline companies that train their own personnel.
Senator Atkins: Who will push them to do it, Transport Canada? They are not doing that.
Mr. Duchesneau: Well, once again, I am not the right witness to comment on that. I am just working within the mandate given by Parliament for CATSA. I would like to be back here in six months and tell you what we have done, and then you can criticize us. I do not have a problem being criticized, on the contrary.
If you criticize us, I think we are in the same boat together. The reason why we have such a committee is because you want to improve security. I get the message. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
The Chairman: The question had to do with your mandate. Your mandate includes the air marshal program. Am I correct?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, it does.
The Chairman: That is what the questioner is asking about. I think you are the right witness. You can proceed with your questions.
Senator Atkins: I only have one other question at this time — namely, do you believe pilots should have weapons?
Mr. Duchesneau: Not at all. If there is one thing I am convinced of, it is that. I used weapons for 30 years. I had to use weapons in very stressful situations. I am convinced that pilots should not be armed.
My job is to ensure that people who board planes do not come on with weapons and explosives. That is my job. I will have to respond to you and to the Canadian population about that.
If a pilot had to use a weapon inside his airplane, it is because I did not do my job properly. I will have to respond to that.
Senator Atkins: One of the first directives that came down after 9/11 was to substitute plastic knives for metal knives. Someone mentioned they would confiscate nail clippers at security. What about forks, are they not a dangerous weapon? Where do you draw the line in all this?
Mr. Duchesneau: Once again, is the system perfect? Obviously, no. We need to improve. As we go along, we will improve. Part of our mandate is to inform Transport Canada if there are any problems. I will do that.
I am pretty sure if I come back before this committee six months from now, we will have improved the system. I am convinced of that. However, we are a new organization trying to do our best to ensure that we will protect Canadian citizens.
Senator Atkins: You have quite a challenge.
Mr. Duchesneau: I think we do.
Senator Smith: This has been helpful, sir. I do not wish to torture you at all. I realize you have not been on the job all that long.
However, I wish to ask several questions relating to some evidence we heard from a previous witness earlier this month on November 4, Mr. Chuck Wilmink. He is the former corporate security manager of Canadian Airlines. Did you have a chance to review his evidence?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, I did.
Senator Smith: He was fairly critical, not just of your organization, but also generally. I want to touch on a couple of things he said. In his opening comment he said:
The current status of airport security is not very good. I could take anyone in this room and in two minutes train that person on how to put a bomb on an airplane for any city in the world.
I will not go on to describe how he said to do it. I want to cover a couple of these things.
He then in his opening statement said:
CATSA took over command of the airport passenger screeners from the airlines. In my view, it is the airlines' responsibility to have proper security on their flights. Their business depends on security. Control of passenger screening, in my eyes, ultimately lies with them. They should be in charge of that.
I suppose that is a policy matter. You may not want to comment on it. I want to give you the chance to comment on that. Do you have a reaction to his statement there?
Mr. Duchesneau: First, we did not take pre-screeners over yet. We will be doing that on December 31. Second, I think it is a good decision that the Canadian government took, to give that to a separate body to take care of security.
Security, no matter in which industry we are, will never be a profit centre. We need to ensure that we are protecting our citizens. We are there, and our raison d'être is security. It is not business. That is one aspect.
Also, we are specializing in security. Airline companies are not. We had that before. There are many reasons why this decision was taken. I fully support that decision.
Senator Smith: I suppose there are roles for both.
Mr. Duchesneau: Their job is to fly passengers. My job is to ensure that when passengers get onboard, they are safe. That job is a big task.
Senator Smith: Mr. Wilmink then spent a lot of time talking about these explosive vapour detection machines. He says that:
They have two machines in the Vancouver Airport right now that can handle 200 bags an hour. There are 1200 bags now going through the system, so they cannot check every bag. They are also very expensive, very hard to maintain and have a high false-positive rate. One out of every five bags comes back with, ``yes, it has a weapon in it,'' and it has to be hand-searched. It is time-intensive, requires a lot of security screeners and is not effective. It is a security tool — but once you build it, people try to break it.
At one point later on, he talked about having dogs going up and down the line. To save time, I said to Mr. Wilmink that he started off by focusing on what he believes are the inadequacies of these vapour detection machines. Then I asked him if they are in operation anywhere in Canada. He replied that they have been deployed at Vancouver. He said:
That is the only one I can speak for, but there is a problem. They have two machines, and one is certified in Canada but not in the U.S., and the other machine is certified in the U.S. but not in Canada. Bags have to go through both machines, so there is a direct conflict right there.
I then asked him who would have ordered these machines and he said that it was CATSA. Was that done intentionally? Was there a slip-up? Why did they order two different machines? He replied:
Those are great questions and I wish could I answer them, but I have no idea why that happened. They should have been addressed beforehand.
I want to be fair and give you or your associates a chance to respond to the criticism there.
Mr. Duchesneau: The expert for those machines is Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: The answer lies in the multi-level system that we have. We have different types of machines that are related to the traffic volume going through, and we do not want to discuss the combinations, but they are designed to do that. Obviously, different machines have different detection levels. You use them in a manner that is most appropriate to the level of traffic.
Senator Smith: What about the idea of using dogs? Do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Duchesneau: We talked about that just recently. It could be an option, so I am not discarding it.
Senator Smith: They are being given some consideration.
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes.
Mr. Duncan: Perhaps, to comment on that, at the major airports, as part of an emergency response mechanism and the police response, we always have that capability.
Senator Smith: He then went through seven recommendations. I do not want to deal with them all, but his first one was to regulate the responsibility for security. Any business in the airline industry, whether it is the airlines, catering or the airport authorities, should have the responsibility to do a proper security assessment. Are you satisfied that your mandate is clear enough, or is this an issue? How do you react to that criticism?
Mr. Duchesneau: Everyone should be concerned with security, not only CATSA, but, as I mentioned to Senator Cordy —
Senator Smith: I am talking about the clear delineation of who is responsible for what.
Mr. Duchesneau: CATSA, with the restricted area pass system, will be doing those checks and will be responsible for ensuring that the people working for those companies are safe and do not represent a threat to the airplanes and to the passengers.
Senator Smith: His next recommendation was about deploying police officers at the actual screening points. There was talk that it could be the RCMP. Do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Duchesneau: Police officers are present at major airports now.
Senator Smith: — at the screening points.
Mr. Duchesneau: I do not see the sense in that. I will not get into the technical side of security measures, but there are ways to ensure that police officers are there within a short time if there is an alert.
Senator Smith: I could follow up on these responses, but I am trying to deal with most of these recommendations. His third one was with respect to increasing the efficiency of the passenger screening agents. He said that things could be done such as reducing the number of carry-on bags. Currently, passengers are allowed two carry-ons. Is that right? Perhaps they could reduce it to one bag per passenger.
He then talked about the amount of training the screening agents receive, which he thought was quite inadequate. Would you care to respond to those points?
Mr. Duchesneau: I am more than impressed with the quality of training. I was in Calgary last week where I met with pre-board screeners on training and with their teachers. This is state-of-the-art training, as far as I am concerned. I read through documents that were given to us, and I do not think they were up to date. He may have been talking about earlier versions of the screening program. The 3,000 screeners will be well trained by December 31. As I said, it will not end on December 31; we will continue with the training.
Senator Smith: His next recommendation, and probably his most important concern, is airline employee security.
Right now, the passengers, pilots and flight attendants go through an extensive check to pass through passenger screening. Meanwhile, the mechanics, cleaners and ramp loaders simply show their restricted area access pass, RAAP. That is just not good enough.
Do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Duchesneau: He is right, and that is why we have this new mandate. We will improve that after we engage in talks with the airport authorities and the airline companies.
Senator Smith: His last recommendation concerns cargo security.
That is the biggest hole right now — a weakness. I could go into the cargo building with a parcel for shipping to my grandmother and someone will say, ``thanks'' and put it on the bottom of the plane.
What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Duchesneau: This will be addressed, as we go along, in 2003.
Senator Smith: Can you tell us now?
Mr. Duchesneau: In 2003 we will begin our discussions on that issue. Again, it is a matter of policy that Transport Canada is looking at, and we will be their advisers.
Senator Smith: Is this a priority for you?
Mr. Duchesneau: It is a priority for us.
Senator Smith: I could pursue all of those, but I want to be fair.
Senator Banks: I have a supplementary to Senator Smith's last question, about the package for the grandmother going in the bottom of the airplane. Tests can be done, which I understand are pretty quick, that have to do with compression, decompression, air pressure, et cetera, which will indicate the kind of fuse or triggering device most often used in devices of that kind. The test will determine if such a package exists. In some airports about which we know, all under-the-belly baggage is put through the tests to ensure that if anything is going to blow up, it blows up there and not on the airplane. Are there any such devices used in airports in Canada?
Mr. Duchesneau: I do not know. However, Transport Canada is looking at that. Mr. Bill Elliot is the right person to answer that question. As I said, I know that they are looking at that possibility.
Senator Banks: In respect of that, and the nature of some of the questions that you have heard this afternoon, I expect we will be asking you to return to speak to us again. However, you should be aware that many of us are extremely frustrated by the fact that, as Senator Smith said, it is difficult to find out who, exactly, is in charge. I will illustrate. Is CATSA in charge of security inside Canadian airports?
Mr. Duchesneau: No.
Senator Banks: Who is?
Mr. Duchesneau: We are responsible for pre-board screening. The airport has a group of people working on security and the police are also present. We are responsible only for a specific task.
Senator Banks: This is a worrisome thing to many Canadians, including me. Mr. Baker referred to this earlier. There is a line drawn. There are the incremental costs and the increased costs of policing. This kind of policing creates confusion over who is in charge. This is frustrating because we cannot get a handle on who is responsible. This is the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and I cannot get an answer to the question of who is in charge. It turns out that if you are on one side of the door, someone else is in charge and someone else is paying for it — the money flows from a different source.
We will be pursuing that question assiduously.
This will be my last question. You mentioned the fact that there had been a 78 per cent increase in expenditures having to do with the incremental increases. Part of that is being spent on training 3,000 people to be better screeners than we now have. Is it the same 3,000 people who are now doing that job?
Mr. Duchesneau: No. Not all 3,000, but I would say about 75 per cent are previous screeners being trained, being assessed, and if they succeeded in the training, then they were hired. Then there were about 20 or 25 per cent new, compared to the United States, where they only kept 15 per cent. They are working with new personnel. We do not have that.
Senator Banks: Does that not indicate that their standard was higher?
Mr. Duchesneau: No, it says we are investing in training. Our jobs as managers is to make ordinary people extraordinary, or to improve the quality of training and quality of service we are giving.
Senator Banks: So far, I must say that the screeners are very nice, but they do not at the moment strike terror into the hearts of anyone. I hope you succeed in making sure that they do.
Thank you.
Senator Atkins: I am just curious; are these screeners being paid on an hourly basis?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, they are.
Senator Atkins: Is it a minimum wage position?
Mr. Duchesneau: No. Salary was raised in certain areas from $6, $7, to $11 an hour, roughly. It depends on the location.
Senator Atkins: Does it also depend on experience?
Mr. Duchesneau: Experience, for sure. There are four or five levels of screener, depending on training and how they succeed when we assess them. You know, when they are better trained, they get a better salary.
Senator Atkins: If they were working in Fredericton, would they get a different salary than at Pearson?
Mr. Duchesneau: Yes, there are differences, geographical differences, but $11 is the average.
Senator Forrestall: With respect to training, we have been assured that there will be no profile training. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Duchesneau: Profiling? No, we are not into profiling at all.
Senator Forrestall: The last several times I have taken an Air Canada flight, the second officer stood at the doorway and he eyeballed everyone coming on that plane. Only when the inside door is closed does he close his door and go in. Why is that? Did you not know about that?
Mr. Duchesneau: No.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us this evening. I can assure you that we will be inviting you back in the near future and we look forward to hearing your testimony on these subjects.
To those of you at home following our work, please visit our Web site by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. You may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1—800-267- 7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Good evening, and welcome back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today, we continue our study on the need for a national security policy by looking at the issue of airport security.
Our next witness is Professor Peter St. John. Professor St. John has written extensively on the issues of airline and airport security in the face of modern terrorism.
(Peter St. John, sworn.)
The Chairman: Professor St. John, will you please qualify yourself for the committee?
Mr. Peter St. John, Professor (retired), International Relations, University of Manitoba: Just for brevity, if I may, I got very interested in this field of airport security because I lost my best student, my teaching assistant, on Air India 182. One moment he was alive, the next moment he was dead. Later, I was to understand about post-traumatic stress, but after 1985 and 1986 were very full of hijacks, I just found myself in the middle of a ``cross-country check-up,'' wondering if I should check into a doctor or not. It was shortly after that, that I was asked to write a book on hijacks and airport security. I descended into the murky labyrinths of 1,200 hijacks, just distressing my family deeply with stories every day, and wrote a book about it, got it out of my system, but also got to know a lot about airports, airplanes, hijacks, terrorists and things like that. I am also a scholar of the Middle East anyway, so, of course, I have been very interested in these things all along.
The book Air Piracy, Airport Security and International Terrorism came out in 1991, and it is not badly out of date, even though it is 12 years actually ``out of date,'' because the principles are the same. We saw the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' emergence at that time.
I have been teaching a course for 28 years called ``Intelligence, Espionage and Terrorism'' at the University of Manitoba, with 150 students in it. I have had many remarkable students doing remarkable papers and exploring airport security on their own.
In 1990, I assisted Air Canada in making two videos to train flight attendants. I can confirm your earlier statements that air flight attendants are fearful, untrained, do not even want to think about it at the moment, and that those videos have not been updated since 1990. They need it.
As director of the counter-terrorist study centre, in 1990, we had a conference on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against North America. As a consequence of that conference, I forecast on Good Morning America that there would be an attack on New York City of the sort that happened. In other words, these things are predictable once you get inside the mind of the people who are trying to do that.
So for the last year, I have spoken 421 times on and around 9/11, particularly a lecture I give called — and it is not a lecture, it is an information session — ``9/11 and the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Mindset.'' That is to try and teach people how the radical tradition has gone back in Islam, both in Suni and Shiite Islam, right back to the Prophet, that this is an old thing, and this is understandable, and we must get our heads around it and understand who is attacking us, not just act surprised, you know. That is who the enemy is. The other enemy is our own slothfulness, of course.
In 1998, I wrote a chapter in the book by Paul Wilkinson about the politics of aviation terrorism, and I was shocked to find how governments lie, or are caught out lying, or speak out of two sides of their mouth at the same time, saying different things. I found out a lot about the drug trade, and so on, as it pertains to aircraft. I found this very discouraging from the point of view of developing airport security.
So I have done a lot of talking. I am very frank. I am not going to promise to tell the whole truth, because I am a practicing Christian. I do not know the whole truth, but I will tell you as truthfully as I can what I think I know, which is the best I can do with the Bible in my hands.
Basically, I have interviewed a lot of flight attendants quietly, in the night, in flight on airplanes. I have interviewed directors of security. I am an independent person. I have absolutely nobody to report to. I can say exactly what I want to say. I try to say what I think is objectively true about this very difficult subject.
I have travelled extensively in Europe and, as you probably know, the European security system is way ahead of ours in North America. We really need to catch up.
May I bring to the committee's attention a remarkable journal that comes out called Aviation Security?
Perhaps I could lend you some of these for a few minutes to look at, at your leisure. This is a suicide baby bomber. You have probably heard about this in recent times. This is surface-to-air missiles, which have been and will be used against aircraft in the future. September 11, with which is an outstanding copy of airport security and then emerging technologies. I have had this for the last three years. It is a remarkably good thing. I recommend it to you. Perhaps the committee would care to use it sometime themselves. I think you should have a subscription to it. It has got such à propos material on what you are covering.
Briefly, you have a 12-page thing in front of you, and I do not want to belabour the point. I tried to point out in my talk, just in embryo, that the lethality of terrorist attacks against aircraft has steadily increased since the early, naive terrorists of the late 1960s. In the 1970s, planes were being blown up in the air and planeloads of people were dying. Something like 110 planes have been exploded one way or another over the last 30 years. These statistics are in my book, but they are not to be found in most places because people do not really want to think about this.
The lethality has increased exponentially to the time now where 9/11 was carried out, under lax airport security, by 11 or 12 people with box cutters who destroyed the airplane, destroyed the World Trade Center and introduced or pushed this, perhaps, the furthest that it has gone. I want to tell you that it is always possible for a suicide bomber to blow up a plane travelling with his luggage in a plane. That is a variation on 9/11. This is a possibility, and it speaks to the kind of security that we should have in our airports. That is why I explained the upward curve of lethality.
The reasons behind September 11, I explained, are that al-Qaeda has a quarrel with the United States, and now, since Canada is deeply involved in the struggle against al-Qaeda, from Afghanistan to the Gulf to elsewhere, we have now been specifically singled out as attackable. In my mind, there is no shadow of doubt that we will be attacked in the end, because we are so closely aligned with American policy over this. The attack may not take place. It may be stymied, but we are in line for it and we should expect it to happen, and we should act as if we thought it was going to happen, because if the attack is not on us, it will be on us in order to attack the United States indirectly.
Having said that and having talked about al-Qaeda as an organization that has grown powerfully since the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden deliberately went around the world sowing the seeds of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movements and joining them into his larger organization, I think we have to see this as a serious development.
I also pointed out in my report that U.S. security measures in airports have taken a huge jump forward. I think Canadian airport security was better before 9/11 than American airport security. I travelled regularly across the United States to lecture at the U.S. Special Operations School on insurgency, and I was able to observe it and even affect airport security to a degree.
Since then, however, the Americans have really slapped into gear. They are trying to put in place in 531 airports a system that really works. They are throwing a lot of money at it. They are doing a lot of training. They are not going to meet the time schedule that they would like to meet, and neither is Canada, but I think that airport security in the United States is a good deal better than it is in Canada at the present time. What worries me in Canada is that there is confusion over who is responsible for security. I think that is a question you have been asking tonight. After tonight, I am even more confused myself about who is responsible for security.
I was hoping to see CATSA have a czar in control, someone who would instill fear in people, who would throw his weight about, who will mandate there shall be security in this country, the same standards right across the country. I was told by a young security scanner in the Ottawa airport that this is the nation's capital, and you must take your camera out and have it looked at right now, so I did. When I got back to Winnipeg, or when I came from Winnipeg, they said, ``We are not looking at cameras any more.'' It is not standardized. It is not the same standard. The same things do not happen in airports all across this country, and we only have nine international airports anyway.
Who controls airport security? I should like to know this.
The second point I made in my talk was that intelligence dissemination is absolutely key. Not only is there a history through the two Senate committees of the RCMP and CSIS not cooperating with one another, but also these people individually will not give timely intelligence warnings to rent-a-cops, to people who are paid — in Winnipeg it is $7.60 an hour. It is not $11 at all, and you cannot expect people to perform well on $7.60 an hour. I know it. My daughters are waitresses sometimes at that price, and it is horrible.
Senator Banks: She gets tips.
Mr. St. John: Tips help. Intelligence dissemination for attacks has to go to airports in a timely fashion, but the trouble is that there are at least 12 agencies in Canada that are now linked to the process of national security in Canada. These 12 agencies cannot possibly share the kind of intelligence in one funnel that will come to a particular airport. There must be a mechanism to draw this intelligence together in the first place.
Thirdly, security screening personnel: I have just advocated for so long that the rent-a-cop system will not work. We have got to have a federal security force using the same methods, the same standards, fully trained. I put before the committee the Malaysian experience, where they paid them such good salaries that the police deserted and came over to airport security and joined them. This is a good system and something we should consider in a small country like Canada, with a federal system.
Fourthly, passenger baggage reconciliation must take place. It is not very expensive. It is hugely costly, at $200 a bag, to lose bags. It amounted in the United States in 1986 alone to $400 million, but if you did it right, you would have saved all that money in the first place and you would have prevented Lockerbie and Air India.
In other words, passenger bag reconciliation is the heart of the system. The Europeans all do it. North Americans have not bothered. In the same way, full baggage screening is something that happens in Europe, but does not happen here. It is a question of getting the technologies that work. Technologies work in Europe. They have got specific technologies that work with a multi-layered system operating at the same time. It is very interesting. The first of those layered systems is just the machine that looks at it. The doubtful ones are pulled out, and then they have tests that are applied with a human element in the second lot, vapour tests and so on. When they have not gone through and you are still doubtful, you have people take them apart physically or a further series of tests. You have multi-layered security using technology and human security together.
We have to have those three things: security-screening personnel who are absolutely fabulous, passenger baggage reconciliation and full baggage screening. That is the price of peace of mind for Canadians travelling in the airport system, and for Americans and, indeed, for Europeans as well.
The other thing I mentioned was the on-ramp personnel. You have been hitting at that tonight. This is an important issue. It is a huge gap in the airport security system. These personnel are not properly vetted. We know that drugs go through there. We know that criminal elements are operating through these people. In speaking to police in airports in the last couple of weeks, I was told of a group that have ``gone dirty.'' In other words, they are opening bags and stealing things. This happened to my wife in Latin America. This apparently can happen in Canada, too. There are people on the ramps doing this, and the police have to try to nail them.
This is a big issue. I will let you ask questions about that, but the system has to work better at Pearson, and everywhere else.
Do I believe in security profiling? Yes I do, but the security profiling I believe in —and the American one is called CAPS — has got 42 variants to it.
By the time you use it, you are pretty sure you are getting your person.
Screening, I want to tell you, only deals with 2 per cent of the travelling public, at the maximum. You can bring it down to only 2 per cent, and 1 per cent if it is good.
Anything that will tell you about who a terrorist might be must be used, including so-called ``racial profiling.'' At one time, it was the Sikhs. At one time, it was the assassins in the eleventh or thirteenth centuries. They could be black, yellow, red — anybody. Race is not the issue. It is just that at this point, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are all Arab and Muslim. I am sorry to be so anti-politically correct. We have to be realistic about this. This is not racial profiling; it is just the way it is at this point in history.
Concerning sky marshals and security officers, I think we should have security officers, and I will talk about those if you want me to. I think sky marshals are a bad association. Sky marshals should not go picking fights with terrorists without collaboration with the pilot. How that can be done through the flight attendants is another issue, and I will let you address that.
Cameras should be in planes so that pilots can tell what is happening back there, as well as the strengthening of doors. This is a very vital ingredient of how you would handle such a situation in the air without blowing the plane up, as in Pennsylvania on 9/11.
Finally, airlines, airport authorities and government, they will have to fight it out. They will have to take responsibility. One or other of these levels will try to make money and deny responsibility. They have to be made to work together to produce airport security, but the public is a vital part of this. What strikes me — and this is my final remark — is the incredible common sense and intelligence of the Canadian travelling public in airports. They see so many things, and they tell me so many things that I would not have seen. I think people are more intelligent and perceptive than we give them the benefit of the doubt for. I think they want a better security system in this country. I think they deserve to get it, too.
Senator Atkins: Welcome, Professor St. John. We looked forward to hearing from you a week ago when, unfortunately, you could not make it.
Were you here for the whole of the previous witnesses' testimony?
Mr. St. John: I was, yes.
Senator Atkins: You know, then, some of the things that are of interest to us. I gather that you also are pleased that this committee is examining this whole issue.
Mr. St. John: Very.
Senator Atkins: You say that the United States is way ahead of us in terms of screening and security at airports. They have 500-and-some different airports and we have, you say, nine. You touched on it, but can you be more specific on where the Americans are screening and we are not?
Mr. St. John: In 1988, during the Lockerbie thing, baggage reconciliation was mandated by the FAA. Because of cost-cutting measures, Pan American did not do it; they ignored the FAA mandate that had been set down. As a result of that, the Lockerbie shoot-down took place and there were millions of dollars, of course, in suing and legal fees and so on. The FAA still did not learn the lesson.
Senator Atkins: Did they not force the airlines to do this?
Mr. St. John: No, they did not, which is why 9/11 took place. They knew what the right thing to do was, but they put the making of profit and the difficulty of making airlines become profitable ahead of security, knowing full well that in the mid-1990s, the Europeans had developed the proper security system and had spent a lot of money. The Americans, in 1994, I think — I put it in my report — spent on all their airports $142 million. Manchester airport alone spent £100 million. Senator Wyden of Oregon said, ``Why?'' The answer was that the Europeans were developing a proper security system.
However, I have not answered your question. When 9/11 happened, it traumatized the Americans. They suddenly realized that their airport security was not working. I thought they would take the FAA and put it under the Justice Department. I am not sure if they did that, but that is what I understood was to happen.
I understand now that the FAA is in charge of setting the standards and enforcing security standards throughout the United States.
Senator Atkins: Whose authority are they under?
Mr. St. John: I am not sure at this moment, whether they are under the Department of Justice or still under the FAA, whether the FAA has a unique mandate to do that.
Senator Atkins: Are they not under Governor Ridge?
Mr. St. John: I am not even sure about that. I do not think so. I think he would have overall responsibility for homeland defence. However, I do not think that includes airport security.
The other thing is that all the airport security personnel have been federalized. They realize that to produce enough people to reach the sort of standards they need, it will take much longer than they originally understood — 2004, maybe even later. The point is that they are determined to reach those standards and to implement them, to make people responsible for security.
Whatever it is, whether it is the FAA, or the FAA under the Justice Department, that is where the buck lands. They have to do that sort of security. They have appointed an undersecretary of transport for security. I would hope this person would really throw his weight around and insist on certain standards.
Senator Atkins: Did they increase the salaries of the people doing security?
Mr. St. John: It is my understanding that the salaries are being substantially increased; but in a smaller country like Canada you could increase them much more and still produce a superb security system without bankrupting us.
Senator Atkins: If you were to select a model, which would you select in terms of security processes?
Mr. St. John: Do you mean a country model?
Senator Atkins: Yes.
Mr. St. John: I quoted to you the Malaysian system of security, especially the security personnel in airports. I think that is a very good model, the one that attracted national police into the security system.
The heart of airport security takes place at the screening area. That is the absolute heart. All the standards are set there. That is what the terrorists are watching. They want to see how alert these people are. If you have people who are really on top of things, really looking for mistakes, really rotating, really well paid and, as I have suggested, if you have security officers who go through with a planeload from the ticket counter to the security place on to the ramp and then on to the airplane and sit on the airplane as sky marshals, you have a wonderful way of looking at and seeing how it will or will not work, and who is a suspicious person and who is not. This person has been with them, watching them all the way through the airport.
Am I getting off on a tangent here?
Senator Atkins: No.
Mr. St. John: I wandered away from your question, but I think that this kind of security officer is the way to go.
Senator Atkins: You talk about Israel and the way it is done with El Al. Is that a good model?
Mr. St. John: It is the best model in the world for airport security. I should have said that. I think the British are very good, too, but the Israelis are the best. They have a small airline. For the defence of Jews, there are no lengths to which they will not go to check on the security. It is superb security. I tried to do a chapter on it in my book and I did not get a quarter of it down; I just know that.
It is very intense security, which involves ringing up your relatives in North America to check on something you are saying in the Middle East, if necessary. It involves cross-questioning and holding you up for three hours. I spent three hours in Lod airport and it took me 25 minutes to fly to Cairo. That is the kind of third degree I went through.
I was happy about it, and Canadians are happy to have real, third-degree security in airports. I have never heard a Canadian complain to me about being held up for security reasons. Canadians have the common sense to know that they want to be inspected properly and come out alive at the end of their flight.
Senator Atkins: The bottom line, in terms of the security, is the training of the personnel.
Mr. St. John: It is the training of the personnel, which is the fundamental bedrock of the system, yes. The personnel must work with the technology to deal with luggage and baggage and stuff like that. It is both, and; not either, or. There is no technology that will be a substitute for human intelligence and savoir faire. It is very, very important.
Senator Atkins: You are noted as saying that there is a standoff at Pearson between the police and the ramp workers. Can you explain that?
Mr. St. John: You probably know more than I do about this at this point. I avoid Toronto like the plague. I came through Thunder Bay today, and I will go home tomorrow through Hamilton, just so I will not have to go through what I consider to be one of the most unsafe airports in the world for security. I think it has the fifth largest volume of traffic. I have compiled a list of airports throughout the world that are always bad. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Pearson has trouble building among the on-ramp people.
In 1986, when I was beginning to write my book, there was a standoff in the airport because the RCMP were not allowed to investigate the clear evidence of illegal immigrants working in the airport. There is a history of this now. If the Mob or criminal elements are at work in Toronto, the same system is in place. There is a mutual disdain between security, between the police, and the ``ramp rats,'' as they are disparagingly called. These are ordinary people in our community. We should not denigrate them in any sense of the word. However, they look at each other as if they are foreign people. They eye each other in a suspicious manner.
Remember the RCMP and the Peel police both operate in Pearson, but there is mistrust between them. That is a bad sign to begin with. The on-ramp personnel have a huge turnover in Toronto, so it is impossible to keep up with finding out whether or not they are reliable. There is a vast amount of people working there. We just have not spent the time and the money to put a proper system into that airport. That is one of the huge weaknesses in our airport security system.
Your airport security is as strong as the weakest link. I have mentioned three or four weak links in my talk, but this is, perhaps, the weakest, because if you can put drugs into airplanes, and you can send all sorts of other things, illegal, criminal things through airplanes, the terrorists will not be far behind. You have to get to the bottom of this system and make it work.
Have I been in Toronto and seen this in place? No, I have just been a passenger going through Toronto airport. I have not been behind the scenes. I do not know if you have; but I do not know if you will. It is not a good situation. It is a bad situation.
If I were a terrorists, that is where I would go in Canada, just as I would have gone to the two airports that they went to to do 9/11, when they did it in 2001, September.
Senator Atkins: What is your view of transparency? You heard the previous panel on this issue talking about how much the public should know and how much they should not.
Mr. St. John: ``Transparency'' is a funny word. The information that you make known publicly has to be carefully selected. When you are threatened by terrorists in a country, when they are threatening the airport security system, you have to treat it somewhat as if it is in wartime; that is to say, that you will issue information that will reassure the public and which will greatly discourage the terrorists, if you possibly can. There will be a mix of truth and exaggeration in the things that you say.
If you say that systems of security are in place in your airport, they had better be working if you say that they are working.
The same issue of transparency comes up in bomb threats. There are hundreds of bomb threats a year. Do you tell the public about every one? No, you do not do that because everyone would be hopelessly panicked if you did. There is certain information that you need to know.
I said that the Canadian travelling public was a very intelligent public. You cannot pull the wool over their eyes. They do not have enough information. They do not know if the airport security system is working very well. They see a number of holes in it, and they are very concerned about it. I think you need to give out enough information, unless you are not doing anything, to meet those criticisms and those expectations. I do not think they are being met. If they are not being met with the flight attendants, who are very concerned about an incident, most of them hope it will just go away and not happen to them, and that is a very bad way to go into an aircraft.
Senator Atkins: Let us be specific. Should flight attendants know about air marshals on their aircraft?
Mr. St. John: I think that there should be cooperative training among sky marshals — can I call them ``security officers?'' — security officers, flight attendants and pilots. I believe that doors should be strengthened so that they can withstand a bashing, if necessary. I believe that cameras should be available so that a pilot could see what is happening in a plane. I believe, also, as with El Al, a pilot should have another door to get out of the plane, which is not the one coming back into the main part of the plane.
There will be some delicate situations in the future that will make it necessary for these three groups of people to cooperate. Canadian pilots do not want guns. American pilots do want guns. I think Canadians would prefer security officers to sky marshals because of the sort of obviousness that took place when sky marshals were implemented in the early 1970s. They were so obvious that you could knock them over and steal their guns anyway. I am talking about a completely different breed of person. Someone you would never know was a security person. I am talking about a use of guns that would not destroy an airplane, but would destroy a terrorist. There are special guns. There has to be very, very good training to do this.
I think it is really sensible, anticipating another 9/11, and to bring the fears into the open to deal with them, to have flight attendants, pilots and security officers trained together. Go through scenarios of what they would do in a certain situation.
Often, one of the things that you will deal with is air rage. People are just out of control and they need to be subdued. Then you get Richard Reid trying to get his shoe to explode. There are a number of different things that happen in an airplane. There are just traditional-type hijacks that people try to do with knives.
Senator Atkins: Thank God for an attendant.
Mr. St. John: Thank God. Well, they are wonderful women.
Senator Banks: And men.
Senator Atkins: Are you surprised that we had witnesses last week who told us that there have been absolutely no changes in the training of air attendants?
Mr. St. John: No.
Senator Atkins: In several years, and none since 9/11.
Mr. St. John: I know the young woman who is in charge of training flight attendants for Air Canada. She is actually a former student of mine. She is extremely concerned.
The concern of the airlines at the moment — Air Canada is trying to swallow the remains, like a boa constrictor that swallowed a pig or whatever it is, of Canadian Airlines, and the flight attendants are warring with each other over seniority. They do not have time for security. That is the trouble, but they should have time for security because this is a big issue.
The woman on the tapes that we did was Uli Derickson, on TWA 847, who threw all the Jewish passports down the lavatory, got rid of them and negotiated the freedom of all the passengers one by one, and had to pay $23,000 on her Visa card, which they were not going to pay back, for a gas fill-up in Algiers. A remarkable woman. That hijack destroyed her life.
She really suffers still from post-traumatic stress, but she did the right things and she saved people's lives by what she did. Flight attendants have been absolutely heroic. There is story after story of what they have done under pressure. However, the more you know about terrorism, and the more you know what a terrorist is trying to do and how he uses fear to manipulate you, the less you are going to be swayed by the terrorist's actions. The more you know, the better off you are. Therefore I want to see educated flight attendants, educated pilots and educated security people in Canadian airports — good, really careful security that watches, like the British do.
Senator Forrestall: Professor St. John, I appreciate your being here. I appreciate your candour. Let me ask you this: Why would anyone want to shoot down an airplane? That is tragic and nonsensical. Would they attack the aircraft because of what they might want to do with it once it was under their control? What is the motivation?
Mr. St. John: Airplanes are totally fascinating to terrorists. Terrorists are mesmerized by airplanes. They love airplanes; they just cannot keep away from them. It is the most exciting form of terrorism for them because it is so vulnerable, so high, so far above the earth, and all those people are so weak and so dependent on the power of the terrorists. I found, in account after account in my book, that this is the reason they do it. They are attracted to it like moths are to light, so we always are going to have these attacks on airliners. There is just no doubt about it.
To answer your question, in The Atlantic Monthly of November 2001, on the crash of EgyptAir 990 — and the safety board of the United States does not accept this account by Langewiesche, the man who wrote it — but it is perfectly clear, if you look at all the information around it, that this pilot was in deep, deep emotional and personal trouble. He was propositioning girls in his New York hotel, trying to sleep with anybody he could. He had huge debts, he was in deep trouble, and I believe he turned the engines off, put the stick down in the plane, and committed suicide along with the death of everyone else in that plane. I believe that 990 was a suicide, and I think that gave the idea to the 9/11 people, or it was close. It was being planned at that time.
On the other hand, the 9/11 people were mixed up. They were people from middle class to upper class families from Cairo, with very well-thought-of and well-known parents, sisters and brothers, who went for training in the West, like Mohammed Atta. He is a classical example. He loved the West, he loved the promiscuity and he loved the openness and freedom, but he felt a deep guilt in himself. These two parts of his personality came together when he ended up in a fundamentalist mosque, where he was told, ``You can do something about this.'' That made something break inside him. The Germans have a word for this. I am just trying to remember what it is. Like a snapping. Suddenly he decided he was going to have to join in this attack on the United States for the sake of posterity, and not claim anything from it, not make any explanation, nothing. This gets us back to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist mind. These people are caught between cultures, but they have made a decision to hasten the ``second coming,'' as it were, by destroying Satan, the evil one, the United States. It just does not make any sense to us, but if you have lived and walked and moved around in the Middle East, as I have in Gaza, say, which is a hellhole for humans, you see how people can develop these theories.
Senator Forrestall: The fascination would seem to be the same with maritime vessels. They blow up destroyers and they have threatened to blow up ferries. It is a unique posturing.
Should we be upgrading our intelligence-gathering capacity, our analytical capacity, or should we be doing more to foster intelligence exchange? At the present, it would seem that Canada's closest ally in this regard would be Australia, surprisingly, not the United States, not the United Kingdom, and not Germany.
Could we achieve more by bending our effort towards fostering improved relations with some of our closest allies and longstanding friends with respect to intelligence sharing, as opposed to the speeded-up development of a collection system of our own?
Mr. St. John: You open a huge can of worms here. I have a particular point of view after many years of teaching intelligence at the university level and watching what happens.
We are the only Western country in the world that acts in the field of security like a one-legged man. That is, all the other countries have positive intelligence, negative intelligence, counter-intelligence, a CIA and an FBI, an MI5 and MI6. In Canada we have an FBI — a CSIS — and no leg. I find it really hard to understand why we do not collect our own intelligence around the world, when our most famous days have been spent criticizing American foreign policy over the years.
I have taught Canadian foreign policy for 30 years too. Our greatest days were criticizing the Americans. We cannot rely on their intelligence; we should have our own intelligence sources, and Canadians, because of their international nature, because of the way they travel, because of the informed multicultural way in which they look upon the world — and I think Winnipeg, where I come from — but I was a British Columbian — is a real multicultural place and I believe it really works there — have an interest and a window on the world that other people do not have. Americans are not interested in other cultures. Canadians are.
I think we should, therefore, collect intelligence. How it will work is a whole other question. However, I feel that we should collect intelligence of our own. When I was in Lahr, in Germany — and I suddenly found my base commander from Lahr here in the audience, so he knows what I am talking about — there was a military intelligence-gathering section, a very good one there. You will not say yes or no to this, but a lot of good intelligence was collected about the terrorism in Europe at that post. Now that we are no longer in Europe, we do not get that intelligence, I suppose. It is really a pity but, again, we have to coordinate the intelligence that is in many agencies.
Senator Forrestall: Is it simply because we have not developed that capacity ourselves that we are not able to cooperate?
Mr. St. John: I believe that since 1945, the political culture diverged in two different directions. Diefenbaker and the civil rights people said, ``No, you can't trample on the rights of Canadians,'' and the RCMP and others, said, ``You have got to have national security, this is a Cold War, we are fighting a war, don't you understand?'' The two sides never understood each other, the two solitudes, to quote C.P. Snow of Great Britain, went off in different directions, and we have a split culture in Canada. Many people are saying, ``Don't limit my rights,'' and the others are saying, ``Don't you understand, we can be invaded?'' We have never resolved this.
Senator Forrestall: Do you have a platform of some form or substance within the Canadian structure from which to launch such an organized effort? Would it be a military or a joint force, for example?
Mr. St. John: No, it cannot be police and it cannot be military, I think. It has to be civil service. I think that we were beginning to understand how to do it from the British, but then we stopped training with the British.
Now the British service remains one of the best intelligence services in the world, and the CIA is in one of the worst depths of gloom it has ever been in.
Senator Forrestall: Why did we stop doing that? Can you link that in time? Can you link it to our withdrawal from Europe?
Mr. St. John: Yes, I think it must have been that. Also, there was a very famous book, For Services Rendered by John Sawatsky. That book is brilliant. You should read that book cover to cover because it shows how the way of developing sources in MI5 was being introduced into the RCMP security service, but that the Mounties did not understand it. Mounties want a conviction; security services want to follow the leads to find out more, and ne'er the twain shall meet. You have to keep them separated in functional practice. You have to have some sort of system operating that will be completely new and set up in a separate way. I think it would be fun to house CSIS and a positive agency in the same building. It would be fascinating. It might work; it might not.
Senator Forrestall: I wish we had the two agencies housed in the same structure.
Senator Banks: Would you just expand a little, because I did not quite get it, on the other leg that we need besides CSIS? What needs to be done in what area that CSIS is not doing? Are you talking about foreign intelligence?
Mr. St. John: Yes, I am. I am sorry; I should have said ``foreign intelligence.''
Senator Banks: Thank you. This is again just anecdotal. I recall a little while ago having been made to get off an airplane because there was a piece of luggage on that airplane and the passenger did not show up. I think that was on a Canadian airplane. You said we did not do luggage and passenger reconciliation. Am I remembering wrongly, or was I in a different country?
Mr. St. John: Were you in Thompson or Tuktoyaktuk?
Senator Banks: No. I have been to both Thompson and Tuktoyaktuk, but not recently. This was within the last year or so.
Mr. St. John: This has never happened to me. I wish it had.
Senator Banks: Perhaps I was in a different country.
Just so that we can hear you talk about this a little more — the difference between truth on the one hand and transparency on the other — we heard earlier from witnesses who are, to some degree, at least, responsible for airline security, to the effect that there was a lot that they think would be untoward and improper and counterproductive to tell us, and therefore the public, about how security is done and the extent to which it is done.
Do you agree that there are some things like that, that have to be closely guarded and that we cannot let the bad guys know what it is we are doing?
Mr. St. John: I think there are certain things that should not be shared in a public place in detail. Had I been in the place of the same individual, I would have been more candid, but I am a more candid individual, I suppose, so that is not really a fair answer.
I think you cannot defend turf. I think we have to create proper security in this country, and it means listening and it means talking and it means giving and taking and it means making mistakes and admitting to mistakes. We have not got a system that works. That is the trouble.
You were speaking to someone who has just come into this office, absolutely brand new, and I am not sure that he knew all the answers to what you were asking. He was a police chief. I am just hazarding a guess here. He has not been watching the whole system working for the last 15 years, as I have, looking at it, exploring, asking questions. I think part of his lack of candour was lack of knowledge. I think when he comes back and knows more, he will have some things to say to you.
Senator Banks: He did also say that he was being tortured because there were a lot of things he wished that he could say to us that he could not.
You referred in your book, as well as today, to the fact that virtually there is a war going on. I guess, just out of curiosity, you will have read The Clash of Civilizations.
Mr. St. John: Indeed.
Senator Banks: You subscribe to its basic premise?
Mr. St. John: I believe that The Clash of Civilizations has put a finger on something enormously important. I do not go the whole way with him, but I believe there are deep clashes within civilizations, as well as between civilizations of a transnational sort. Huntington is a very great figure in my field. You dare not criticize him. He knows so much.
The Coming Anarchy by Robert Kaplan, I put a lot of stock in that article from The Atlantic Monthly in February 1994. It is coming true, chunk by chunk, in front of our eyes. It is a remarkable book and a remarkable 23-page article.
There is a clash, really, between the Muslim world and the Christian world at the moment, and it is being led by the fundamentalist people who are fed up with a number of very pointed and definite things. I wonder if this is the sort of answer you want. One of the ways of increasing airport security is to deal with the political issues that cause the attacks on airports in the first place.
In the article that I told you about in Paul Wilkinson's book, which I read, just for fun, I went through all the hijacks that had happened to see who had done the most hijacks over time, and I found that one ethnic group was responsible for 74 per cent of all hijacks to date. Do you know what that group is? The Palestinians and their related agencies and organizations. If you gave self-determination to the Palestinians, if you gave them a state, you would cut the ground out from underneath the fundamentalists. One of the main reasons for attacking the West would be gone, because that is what they are linking into the Intifada at the present time. It is just one of a number of ways of going at it, but there are political solutions, and there is deep resentment of American support of Israel, which is seen as partisan by Muslims around the world. I have had this many times with Muslims and Arabs.
Senator Banks: And the American military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. St. John: The last words of the Prophet before he died were that infidels should not be allowed on the Arabian peninsula. Technically, that is absolutely true. Osama bin Laden has sort of geared it up into a philosophy to draw the people behind him to attack the United States.
Senator Bank: Would you comment, since there is, in your view, in some respects, a war, on Churchill's idea that in war, the truth is such a precious commodity that it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies?
Mr. St. John: I use that text in my course, the bodyguard of lies.
Yes, as long as you do not think that Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed. He did not, because he did not know it was going to happen that night. But yes, deception is what you are talking about. Deception is a part of war. Deception is a part of military strategy. Deception has always operated in every facet. Our man in Tehran, Taylor, practiced deception to get the Americans and Canadians out of Tehran. Of course you accept it. You cannot be morally indignant about that. It is part of diplomacy.
Senator Banks: You have already answered the question. I just need to prod you a little more about it, and I am trying not to be gratuitous in this. Are we being morally duplicitous when we employ ethnic screening or when we do not?
Mr. St. John: Yes.
Senator Banks: In both cases?
Mr. St. John: Yes. I am uncomfortable with your saying ``ethnic screening.'' At the moment, the West is under attack by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Mostly they come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan — places like that. Pakistan is a culture. The Iranians are a culture. The Arabs are a different set of people. They are all Muslims. It so happens that our enemies who are attacking us are Muslims, and they may be Muslim Arabs and Muslim Persians and Muslim Turks — not many — but Muslim Yemenis, Arabs, and it is not wrong to call them ``the enemy'' at the moment.
On the other hand, we have very good relations with the Arab countries at the present time, most of them.
Senator Banks: Well, it is wrong to call them the enemy. It is right to say that some of them are the enemy.
Mr. St. John: There is a small group who have committed themselves to this philosophy. People who have this colour of skin are going to be under suspicion in our society.
You know what? I see very little discrimination in the circles in which I move, in university. I have many Islamic and Muslim students. I have actually given this talk on the Islamic fundamentalist mindset. I have had Islamic students in the lecture come up afterwards and say, ``That is fair. That is okay. You treated us in the right way over that. Thank you. That was a useful talk.''
Senator Banks: Can we do that at the screening point? Can we treat people fairly if we identify them because they have red hair or wear brown belts or whatever?
Mr. St. John: Screening has to be far more sophisticated than just simply looking at the colour of skin. It involves a lot of factors.
You must understand that security screening starts with your credit card away back at home when you pick up the telephone. It depends on your credit rating. It depends on your place in society, where you live, and the frequency with which you fly, whether you pay cash or whether you use a Visa card. All these things are going into the mix of screening. One of those things at this time happens to be that way.
At one point not so long ago in our history, we were very suspicious of Sikhs, with their turbans. Now they walk around in their turbans and do all sorts of things. We do not feel suspicious of Sikhs. Another time it is someone else, like Palestinians. This is just one small element of it.
Airport security is far more sophisticated than simply being an ethnic identifier. There is the behaviour of someone who is about to do something on an airplane, which is frequently visible in the physical habits and in the motions of their hands. That is why I said to you that a really well-trained security officer going right through with a planeload onto the plane has a good chance of seeing who will be a danger to that plane. It may have nothing to do with ethnicity.
Senator Banks: I know that the corollary question would be, can we afford not to do that, but that would mean that we would have to put security officers on 200,000 flights a year in Canada. Can we afford to do that?
Mr. St. John: This is the truth-and-error thing. You will never say how many security officers there are. You will never say on what flights they are. You are just truthfully going to say that there are security officers on enough flights that you had better not try it, because we have a really good system in place.
Airports actually have to develop a form of truthful propaganda, where they make it clear that they are watching for terrorists, that their defences are in place and you had better not try it here, buddy. You can do that. It is very doable. An airport security director in an airport who is really on the ball can give that airport a reputation that will reach the ears of terrorists.
Senator Banks: The last question, is the greatest impediment to that the lack of concentration of responsibility?
Mr. St. John: I think so.
The Chairman: Briefly, Professor St. John, in terms of transparency, can you think of any reason, from a security point of view, why this committee or the public should not be informed when security fails? In other words, when you are testing systems, should the tests be kept secret and, if so, why?
Mr. St. John: I do not think the tests should be kept secret. I gave you the results of a number of tests in my testimony. I could have given you a number of other tests as well that have been conducted. The tests are an illustration of where your security is. If you have a 30 per cent failure rate in your tests, you are not doing it. You are not producing proper security.
The Chairman: We have read reports in the United States of a 50 per cent failure rate in some airports. If Canadian authorities remain silent on this, should we conclude that they do so, not for security reasons, but rather for reasons of incompetence, or because they do not have security in place?
Mr. St. John: That is what the Canadian public is going to think. I think that is what the Canadian public thinks. I told you it is an intelligent public. It is a well-travelled public. They are right to think it if they are not given that information. They want to see concrete evidence that it is working. They see the evidence with their eyes. They want to know what the tests were, the test results when they came out. When those are down to 10 or 15 per cent, we will know we are getting a good system in place.
Senator Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the areas I have noted have been touched on. Let me just touch on a few aspects that have already been raised.
Let us get this one out of the way: You heard the evidence from CATSA with regard to these vapour detection machines versus dogs. Do you have any particular knowledge about that that you think we should hear, or is that not your area of expertise?
Mr. St. John: It is not really my area of expertise. I just want to say to you that there are a number of very different technologies that are improving all the time, sniffer technologies and vapour technologies, and CAT scan technologies. It is a mix of these things that are racing to become foolproof. They are coming from different parts of the world, some in the United States in the private sector, some in Germany, some in Britain and elsewhere.
This has not settled down yet. It is not clear which machines are going to do the perfect job. However, a combination of layered security, as the gentleman before me said, with machines that really will work, or probably are going to work — the Europeans have got this in place — will give you good airport security for the moment. They will improve over time, especially with the use of Semtechs, you see, which can look like a woman's sweater. There are ways of cross-checking different types of security screening, so that if one system misses it, another picks it up.
Senator Smith: The technology, and this is more of a comment, is a bit like personal computers. Having three kids, it is very depressing for me to think of how many I have bought in the last 10 years that are now all obsolete. Okay. I think we have covered that.
In terms of spending priorities, we could blow our brains out, I suppose, doing everything under the sun. I know you focused a lot on training of personnel. Is there anything else you think we should hear when we are trying to get a sense of, and come to some conclusions on, spending priorities?
Mr. St. John: You mean are there other things that we should spend money on that have not been talked about?
Senator Smith: No. I like to keep it simple. We could get a wish list of a lot of things. However, in terms of prioritizing the resources that can be loosened up from those that control the vault, I know you focused on training of all personnel. Are there any others that you would like to identify in terms of shortcomings, rather than the dream list, the wish list?
Mr. St. John: That is not in the list of 10 that I put there?
Senator Smith: Yes. Were your 10 prioritized?
Mr. St. John: No, they were not. They were just put together there as being what I think are the weak links in the system.
Senator Smith: Then I do not think I looked at them as closely as I should have. What would the top three be?
Mr. St. John: Passenger-baggage reconciliation, on-ramp personnel, security screening personnel and baggage screening.
Senator Smith: Would training not make it, personnel training?
Mr. St. John: That is what I meant, training, yes.
Senator Smith: Let us go back to this delicate issue of profiling. We all want to be fair.
Yes, the percentage of al-Qaeda-type fundamentalists, fanatics who are prepared to commit suicide, has to be miniscule. I realize that the job of security personnel is not to run human rights commissions; their job is to be strategic.
Do you have any thoughts about how to do this in such a way that will still show respect and fairness to the 99.99 per cent of Muslims for whom all of this is a complete anathema, and with which they do not identify at all?
Mr. St. John: Some of this can take place in the schools and in the universities. We live with Muslims and with people from the Arabian culture. In 35 years of travelling around the Middle East, I have never been physically assaulted or treated in any way that I would be upset about. I have found nothing but extraordinary kindness in the 12 or 15 Arab countries that I have visited. There was remarkable courtesy shown towards me. I was a white person, technically right out of the mould, and I did not belong there. Yet, people were extraordinarily good to me and I was impressed with that. It seems to me that we should show the same cultural sensitivity.
The Prime Minister gave quite a good lead on this by insisting that Muslims and people of Arab descent are full citizens of our country. We have to insist on this; it is an essential part of our multiculturalism. At the same time, I would like to see us encourage some of these people to find the weeds among them, if you know what I mean.
We now know that the Sikh assemblies were taken over by the radicals who wanted to create an independent Palestine. At some point in the Sikh assemblies, the moderates must have put their hands over their heads and said, ``I do not want to go this way. This is not good. Something is going to happen.'' Three hundred and twenty-nine people died in the Air India crash. I guess they regret that, and so they are coming around as Canadians. Who can be more Canadian than Ian Hanomansing? It makes you feel good about Sikhs just seeing him on CBC television; he is as Canadian as apple pie.
Senator Smith: By coincidence, I was parking my car out by the airport to go to the bat mitzvah of Minister Caplan's daughter and I watched that Air India plane taxi by. I saw the faces of the passengers in the windows, and many of them were wearing turbans. The feeling that I had the next morning was something that I will never forget. I saw those faces not too far away.
Are you nervous when you fly? When you get on a plane, do you look for anything in particular that we should hear about, that may raise your comfort level?
Mr. St. John: Raise it or lower it?
Senator Smith: Well, if you do not see it, maybe it would raise it, but if you do see it, maybe you would get off the plane. What do you look for?
Mr. St. John: I am a fatalist. I travel a great deal by airplane and I give no thought to it. If I die, I die.
Senator Smith: What if you saw something?
Mr. St. John: I will certainly not stop flying because I am afraid I will die.
Senator Smith: If you saw something that troubled you, what would you do?
Mr. St. John: I would go to the lead flight attendant and insist that she speak to the pilot about it. I have seen things that have troubled me on transatlantic flights.
Senator Smith: Did you do that?
Mr. St. John: Yes. It usually involves drinking episodes, where people are getting out of control — air rage-related things. I think more authority should be given to flight attendants and captains should exercise their authority more at certain times. Enough of being nice, you know, I am captain of this flight.
One of my friends was in the Battle of Britain, and he was the only one to survive in his whole squadron. He felt guilty living because he felt he should have died like his friends. He never got over it. He received a note, delivered to him by a flight attendant, that said, ``This is a hijacking. I want money.'' He looked at the note, walked down the airplane aisle and said, ``Give me that gun.'' The terrorist gave him the gun, just like that, and the whole thing was finished in two seconds. I am not saying this happens every time, but there has been too much pandering, and drink and food. It is probably healthier that we are not having food on airplanes anymore — now they are just conveyances — because it has given rise to much trouble: drinking, smoking and eating.
Senator Cordy: It has been a fascinating discussion. In fact, when you said it was my turn, I was still in the listening mode.
One thing that concerns me is the issue of who is in charge. How do we solve it? My experience is such that if there is no one in charge, then no one takes charge. How do we solve that dilemma?
Mr. St. John: I believe the issue has to be resolved. I held the first airport security conference in Canada, in Winnipeg in 1986. Transport Canada had not organized it and so they actually tried to close it down. They told all the people in Air Canada not to come to this conference. The then head of Air Canada security rang everyone up and told them to attend, and so they did. That saved the conference. In the middle of the conference, there was a hostage situation in Winnipeg airport, which could have ended in the blowing up of the whole airport, over custody of children. Suddenly, the media were at this conference and the whole story came out. It was necessary to have this.
I have had such trouble with Transport Canada so many times, like when they say, ``This is secret, and we cannot talk about it.'' Or, ``Yes, we are dealing with it but it is none of your business.'' I just do not believe in Transport Canada. I simply think it is a bad agency to be in charge of airport security. They have devolved security onto the airlines and they gave up government responsibility for it. They hide behind excuses. There was an interview with Anna Maria Tremonti about air rage. It was a scary piece on television where the Transport Canada person simply sat there and said nothing. When asked, ``Will you strengthen airport doors,'' ``I do not know,'' was the reply. I want to see responsibility for airport security handed over, as it has been in the United States, to the Department of Justice, or to anyone who would be ready to whack a big stick with a clear line of authority to do it — someone who will take responsibility for airport security; who will implement it and make it work. If it does not work, heads will roll. That is the kind of agency I want and that is what I am looking for in CATSA. I want to see people who will instil fear in the people underneath them of not going along with the rules.
Senator Cordy: You are saying that if the mandate of CATSA were expanded, they could take responsibility.
Mr. St. John: The current minister loves trains, not aircraft. I wonder about his competence, I am sorry, in the area of aircraft. It was on the CBC's Town Hall program with host Peter Mansbridge that some people told me that there is no airport security at northern airports, and so they wondered if the system is safe. The minister said, ``Oh, well, you and everything else goes through security when you get to Winnipeg to go on to Toronto from Thompson.'' No, your luggage goes all the way through, and sometimes you can avoid going through security again, too. It is just not true. He needs to know his mandate. We need someone who really knows what is happening, who knows the difference between bad and good security, who implements the security and who terrorizes people until they do it. This is what Canadians want to see. I want to find an agency that wants to do that. If CATSA were to do it, it would have to get out from under the control of Transport Canada, because it has a terrible record.
Senator Cordy: You mentioned the Department of Justice. Could you see that department taking over responsibility for airport security?
Mr. St. John: I am desperate.
Senator Cordy: Anyone. Just someone take charge, is what you are saying?
Mr. St. John: Anybody who insist on standards. You see, the FAA got yanked around by the airlines. It was a political game. The airlines threatened them. ``We will go bankrupt. We will do this.'' The FAA said, ``Oh, okay, it's alright, you don't have to do these rules.'' That is what happened in Lockerbie, you see. You must not be jerked around by the airlines, because the airlines are going to say, ``Look, we're going to go bankrupt.'' The airport managers are going to say, ``Look, we're here to make money, and business is a very fine thing. You don't expect us to spend money.'' Yes, we do. Everyone will be after you and at you. You have to have rules and enforce them. You must have an agency that is really tough. That is why I would like to see someone like a director of homeland security in charge of airport security, because that and airport security are the two biggest threats to Canada at the present time. The thought of a nuclear weapon going through a container in a port is a very real danger, and it could happen quite easily.
Senator Cordy: To change ideas again, are we spending our security money wisely, or is it just that we do not have enough money to spend?
Mr. St. John: I think we have more than enough money to put good security in place. I think it is being badly spent, and I think that it is leaking like a sieve, because so many elements of the security system are not in place. It is meant to be a seamless garment. Security must be a system. Remember the link in the chain? You must have the whole system working. You cannot have just little bits of it. A little bit of security here and a little bit of intelligence here and some pepper here, and here is our hamburger. No. The whole system must work properly.
We do not have a large country in terms of many airports. We have eight or nine international airports, and about 29 altogether. We could implement first-rate security here if we did not bumble from crisis to crisis to crisis, throwing money at it and reacting after the event, instead of putting first-class security in place on the first occasion. That is what I think we should do, even if it means starting all over again.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for your openness.
Senator Banks: Do you happen to know, off the top of your head, given that you have talked about the British system as being one that would be a good model for us, what the cost, give or take a nickel, would be of applying that system to our 29 airports? Have you thought about that?
Mr. St. John: Yes. The British have worked the system out. There was a famous experiment at Abbotsinch Airport in Scotland, where they poured in that 100 million pounds and then another 50 million pounds after it, and they worked out the technologies for full screening and developed passenger-baggage reconciliation, and they got it working so beautifully in there that they then spent that money in the next years doing Heathrow.
By the way, Heathrow No. 3 is designed as an airport to foil terrorists, with long passages where you cannot shoot people up and so on, and ways of looking at passengers on the way to the plane. Look at Heathrow 3 the next time you are there, at an airport that is designed for security. Do not go to Munich; it is a big shooting hall. Do not go to Rome or do not go to Vienna, however much fun it is.
Senator Forrestall: What about the Netherlands?
Mr. St. John: Good — Schipol is very good. Did I answer your question here?
Senator Banks: Would you have an approximate dollar figure for importing that?
Mr. St. John: The British have developed the technology, so it will be much cheaper. They have done all the pioneering, okay? The interesting thing is that the Department of Transport, DOT, in Britain was living in denial after Lockerbie for almost five years, and it was airport management that spent the money on the technology that now works around the world, and they did it with the private sector. The savings were so huge that it paid for the cost of the security.
The Chairman: Professor St. John, I thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing before us. We found your testimony to be most interesting and useful. Could I ask you to be available to our committee secretariat to follow up on some of the comments you have made today? I think they would be most interested in getting the sources of some of the comments that you have made, which you made in the context of a narrative, but for the purpose of our report, I think we would find it useful if we could footnote and document them. That would be helpful.
To those of you at home following our work, please visit our Web site at www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267- 7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
This portion of the meeting is adjourned. We will reconvene briefly in camera in the room to my left.
The committee continued in camera.