Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 9 - Evidence, February 16, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:55 p.m. to continue its study on emerging issues related to the Canadian airline industry.
Senator Leo Housakos (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order and I thank you for being here.
[English]
This evening we are continuing our study on the airline industry. Appearing before us, on behalf of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, is Kevin McGarr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority; and Yves Duguay, Senior Vice-President, Operations.
Mr. McGarr, you have the floor. Following your presentation, we will proceed with questions.
Kevin McGarr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: We are pleased to be here today to speak with you and to respond to any questions you may have.
[Translation]
CATSA is responsible for the pre-board screening of passengers and the belongings in their possession; checked baggage screening through the use of explosives detections systems; the random screening of non-passengers; and, the enabling of the biometric identification of non-passengers entering airport restricted areas.
[English]
As outlined in the CATSA act, we do this by delivering effective, efficient and consistent security screening services that are in the public interest. As a Crown corporation, we report to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
CATSA currently employs over 500 people in locations across Canada. Additionally, we follow a screening contractor service delivery model. Through that model, we oversee aviation screening services at Canada's 89 designated airports, working with 11 different screening contractors.
Together, these companies employ close to 7,000 screening officers who, last year, screened 62 million pieces of baggage and 51 million passengers.
[Translation]
After it was announced in February 2010 that CATSA would receive five-year funding, the Government of Canada launched a full review of CATSA's spending, efficiency and structure to ensure that CATSA is fulfilling its mandate in an efficient and effective manner.
[English]
During the review, consultations were conducted with stakeholders from across the aviation security community. Additionally, passengers and other interested parties were invited to provide submissions. Upon consideration of the findings, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State announced on February 3, 2011 that there will be changes to our airport screening process.
[Translation]
We believe they will translate into an increase in our throughput — which is the number of passengers that can be screened each hour at major checkpoints across the country — while maintaining or improving aviation security and enhancing customer service.
[English]
One of the changes resulting from the review is that Transport Canada has now harmonized the prohibited items list in line with international standards. Air travellers are able to bring small scissors and tools in their carry-on baggage, contributing to a screening process that is more convenient.
With new equipment and lane configurations, we will also be able to enhance the flow of passengers and bags at the security screening checkpoint. For example, in collaboration with airport authorities and where space allows, we will be installing equipment that will automatically separate unresolved bags from cleared bags, reducing congestion.
In partnership with the Canada Border Services Agency, we will be expanding the use of the Trusted Traveller CATSA Screening Lines to Vancouver, Calgary, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg. This initiative, currently operational in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, provides a designated pre-board screening line for known travellers who pose a lower risk, as they are pre-approved travellers who possess a valid NEXUS card.
There will also be new dedicated lanes for families and those with special needs, with equipment specifically designed for bigger items such as strollers. We are confident that both of these new lane configurations will facilitate passenger convenience at the screening checkpoint.
[Translation]
CATSA is currently undertaking its largest-ever contracting process for screening services. This is an opportunity for our organization to redefine our relationship with our screening contractors and to create a screening process that better combines security with customer service so that we are even better positioned to meet evolving and emerging threats. CATSA expects to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and consistency of its operations through this procurement process.
[English]
We are also implementing our own internal changes to improve the quality of our service delivery, better focus our operations regionally, and ensure that the activities of our employees are well aligned to serve the new service contracts that will come into effect on November 1 of this year.
At the same time, we are continuing to work with our partners and stakeholders in the air transport industry to strengthen our relationships and, in turn, improve the travel experience for all passengers.
[Translation]
Passengers do not necessarily differentiate between the various organizations they encounter at the airport so it is the collective responsibility of all of us in the air transport community to work closely together in ensuring that air travel in Canada is a positive experience for everyone.
We also know that in times of crisis, such as the events of December 25, 2009, we must be able to rely upon established, collaborative and functional relationships with our stakeholders.
[English]
In terms of our relationship with our regulator, Transport Canada, we continue to make progress in improving air transport security through mutual respect and cooperation, which is something of which we are very proud.
Moving forward, I would like to assure you that we are committed to implementing a rigorous performance measurement program to ensure that our operations are the most effective that they can be. The only way to truly reach excellence in operational efficiency is by measuring how we are doing, focusing on what we do best and fixing what can be done better.
The changes announced by the ministers last February 3 are moving us in that direction. We welcome these changes and are committed to implementing them because we know they will take us to where we want to go, that they are in the best interests of Canadians and because they are critical to our continued success.
[Translation]
I thank you for your time today and welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions you may have.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGarr.
I would like to remind our audience that the committee is currently studying emerging issues related to the Canadian airline industry. Appearing before the committee this evening are officials from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Before we go to our first round of questioning, I want to stress to the members of the committee that it is important that we keep our questions within the confines of the study that we are doing and try not to be repetitive. I understand we have CATSA before us and security is their business, but I want to remind our members that last year the house committee did a study on security. We are not here to reinvent the wheel. Our focus is on the administrative aspect, airport governance, the airline industry and competitiveness. I just want to remind members of the committee that the questioning should stay within that focus.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. With those guidelines, I do not have any questions. I wanted to let loose, and you put the handcuffs on me. However, I will follow the chair's rules.
In addition to the study that was done, the recent review of the organization, why did the review not address the current funding model for CATSA? Specifically, why is the funding collected under the Air Travellers Security Charge allocated to the federal government's Consolidated Revenue Fund, rather than provided directly to CATSA and other federal departments and agencies involved in aviation security?
Mr. McGarr: All aspects of the Air Travellers Security Charge are managed by the Department of Finance, and it would be the Department of Finance that would be able to answer that question.
Senator Zimmer: I am sure you would rather receive the funding, but that is the way they have set it up.
How do CATSA's current screening delivery models compare, in terms of cost and the level of service provided, to that employed in other countries, such as the United States and Australia?
I have noticed many times that there seems to be an imbalance in the service provided when you go through security. What I mean by that is that some are friendlier than others, because of the training they receive. One of the things you could ask them to train officers to do is at least smile, because there seems to be an edge.
I went through security on one occasion, and because I did not like the line I was in, I commented to the lady beside me. The agent saw that and he came running over to me and almost threw me to the wall. I had just commented that the line was shorter.
How does the screening compare to other models around the world, especially those two countries?
Mr. McGarr: I believe it compares favourably. In the United States, as you know, the screening officers are direct employees of the Transportation Security Administration. In Australia, they are contracted employees, very much like the Canadian model. Among the three operating entities, I believe that Canada is very well positioned, in terms of level of service, efficiency and effectiveness. However, we continuously work to improve that.
Senator Zimmer: Over the past year, there have been several media reports of passengers' complaints concerning CATSA's screening process, particularly with regard to full body scanners and physical searches or pat-downs.
If you have the option of either the pat-down or going through the machine, I think most will choose the pat-down. However, I would think that you would want to make it consistent, and I think the better system for you would be through the circular screening process.
One of the things that comes with that is inconsistency. One week they take certain items away, and the next week it is different items. I am sure this is frustrating to the people doing the searches. There seems to be an inconsistency, or the guidelines are changing. I hear they are changing even further to allow certain items.
A case in point: If they find a knife in your luggage, they take it away, but when you get on the plane, and when the food comes, you have a knife, fork and spoon; and they are steel, not plastic.
In addition to that question, could you also respond with regard to the inconsistency of what one week they take away, in terms of liquids and metal objects, versus the next?
Mr. McGarr: The prohibited items list is very well defined, and we certainly strive to apply that consistently across the system. There are some differences for flights going to the United States, as an example, where additional measures are required. These measures are required by regulation, and we comply with the regulatory requirements. There have been changes to the prohibited items list recently, and, as I said, we are striving to ensure that these are applied consistently across the country.
Senator Zimmer: I can understand that when you go to the United States, they have stricter rules, even on people with criminal records, but it is confusing to the passenger. The more consistent you can make that for the passenger, the better they can pack. Thank you for your responses.
The Deputy Chair: Despite the constraint, Senator Zimmer, I can see that there was no lack of quality or quantity with regard to your questions.
Senator Mercer: I will try to stay within the confines as well, except that there are a couple of events that have happened since the committee did its report, which brings me to my first question.
Has CATSA been asked to examine the possibility of screening visitors to the airport — and I am talking about passengers now, people who arrive at the door of the airport — from the door to security, which is your responsibility now? I refer particularly to the incident at the Moscow airport, where the suicide bomber was in the public area. This is an issue.
Have you been asked to examine that issue in the context of this new development? We should have anticipated this, but now that it is here, have we started to look at what CATSA or some other agency might have to do to respond to this new threat?
Mr. McGarr: I am sure that Transport Canada has looked at that closely.
With respect to CATSA, our jurisdiction begins at the designated security line that separates the public area of the airport from the restricted area. The area in front of the security line is the responsibility of the airport authority, as is the area beyond the line. I do know that there certainly have been discussions with those parties, but CATSA has not been asked to expand beyond our current mandated activities.
Senator Mercer: Like you, I hope someone is asking the question somewhere, and we will pursue that as we go along.
You talked about the change to the prohibited items list. All of us around this table have several things in common. One of the things we have in common that relates to you is that we are all frequent flyers. Most of us fly a couple of times a week. The prohibited items list is something that we have gotten used to, but now it has changed. How will you educate the public? Will we go through an education process? I know you post lists at the gates. Will we distribute lists to passengers as they go through so they can keep a new list of what is allowed now that was not allowed before? I am not necessarily agreeing with what is allowed now, but if the rules have changed, the rules have changed.
Mr. McGarr: We are trying to use all available communication products to impart this information. We are using websites, electronic media and printed media. There are public announcements. We intend to continue developing communications material for passengers. The changes are relatively simple. From what we have seen at the checkpoints since the changes have occurred, most passengers appear to have a good grasp of what the changes are.
Senator Mercer: I would think you might want to involve in your education process travel agencies and the airlines themselves, because those are the people we buy tickets from.
Mr. McGarr: Yes, and we absolutely do. We engage the industry at every opportunity.
Senator Mercer: I always go to secondary screening because I have two artificial knees. I set the alarms off every time I walk through. In Canada, I always find the screening simple and usually very polite, as opposed to my travels in Europe or the United States. In the United States, because I have artificial knees, I almost feel like a criminal when I have to go through secondary screening. It is quite a process there. In Europe, it is not as bad as in the United States, but it is not as polite as the Canadians. I wanted to give you that feedback as someone who constantly has the secondary screening.
The training of the individuals who work for CATSA has to be done very well and delicately, because they are dealing with some individuals who do not travel a lot and are nervous. Is there an ongoing training process for people who have been in the system for a while, to retrain them and ensure that they are keeping up to more modern methods of screening and also of recognizing potential threats that may come through the gate?
Mr. McGarr: Yes, there is. Last year, as a matter of fact, we updated our recurrent learning and re-certification program. Screening officers must be re-certified every year, and they use this recurrent learning program in order to ensure that they meet the standards that we have set out for them.
Senator Cochrane: I was a few minutes late. I apologize for that. You may have said some of the things I am about to ask you.
Was CATSA the lead on this project, this new initiative with the changes?
Mr. McGarr: No. We are an operating entity. The changes were brought about by Transport Canada. The regulatory framework has changed, and we operate within that framework.
Senator Cochrane: You had no input into this.
Mr. McGarr: We were consulted on parts of the changes, and certainly on the operational impacts and the implementation considerations. We were not necessarily part of the entire process that Transport Canada undertook to come to the decision to make these changes.
Senator Cochrane: I read an article yesterday in the paper that indicated that this is a "made-in-Canada behaviour assessment program, customized to Canada's legal and cultural environments and will reflect the norms and customs of Canadian society." Can you explain what that means?
Mr. McGarr: I would imagine that you are referring to the behaviour pattern recognition or passenger behaviour observation program that we are currently piloting in Vancouver.
Senator Cochrane: Yes.
Mr. McGarr: We have developed a program that we started two weeks ago in Vancouver with some CATSA employees acting as behaviour observation officers. They are looking for behaviours that are unusual for the context of a screening checkpoint in a Canadian airport. If these unusual behaviours are identified, it could bring the officer to request that that passenger receive secondary screening. That is the extent of the program. We will run this pilot project for about six months, at which time we will report back to our regulator, who will be making a report to Parliament to consider whether the program should be deployed across the country.
Senator Cochrane: I must tell you that my concern when I hear this sort of thing is that we might be going down a path toward ethnic and racial profiling. I am looking at different lanes and so on. What can you say to allay the concerns of Canadians like me who are concerned about the implications of such an assessment program, particularly for visible minorities?
Mr. McGarr: I can assure you that the program is developed within well-defined parameters, and ethnic origin has absolutely no place in the program. We know that things like racial profiling do not work. They are totally offensive and have no place in our society.
This program is developed solely on the basis of unusual behaviour for the context of a screening checkpoint at a Canadian airport. A rigorous quality assurance component is built into the program to ensure that each and every intervention of a behaviour officer is reviewed to ensure that it meets the standards that we are expecting of officers in that program.
Senator Cochrane: I would like to ask you about the recent changes in the prohibited items list. As I understand it, CUPE has expressed concerns that these changes will negatively and directly affect everyday safety and security. I would like your comments on that. I must tell you that I have concerns about hypodermic needles and scissors and things like that being brought aboard the plane. Would you like to allay my fears and those of CUPE as well?
Mr. McGarr: To allay your fears, I can only say that like many of you, I am also a frequent traveller. Understanding the multiple layers of security that are part of the Canadian air transport system, I am perfectly comfortable with the changes that were made to the prohibited items list, and I feel perfectly secure when I board an aircraft in Canada.
Senator Cochrane: That is now, but what about when these other personal items will be allowed on board?
Mr. McGarr: They are currently allowed on board, senator.
Senator Cochrane: Scissors and hypodermic needles?
Mr. McGarr: They are small scissors.
Senator Cochrane: Yes, but they have pointy tips. I must tell you, I am concerned about those things.
What would be the rationale for allowing these items to be carried on board?
Mr. McGarr: That decision was made by Transport Canada, and I think it would be more appropriate for Transport Canada to explain why they came to that decision. It is a regulation, and we respect it.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you.
Senator Meredith: Let us get to the meat of the matter here with respect to spending and dollars allocated and so forth. In last year's budget there was an allocation of $1.5 billion with respect to CATSA. What have you spent those funds on?
Mr. McGarr: The funding announcement in Budget 2010 allowed CATSA to have the operating and capital expenses available to complete the activities that are outlined in our corporate plan each year. The bulk of our spending is on payment to service providers, the contracted workforce. CATSA did not have, in the fiscal framework, a reference level that allowed us to conduct our operations without this additional funding over the five-year period.
Senator Meredith: The contractors that were used, were they Canadian firms?
Mr. McGarr: Yes.
Senator Meredith: They were all Canadian firms?
Mr. McGarr: They are, senator.
Senator Meredith: With respect to a review of your operations, under that same budget there was a request to have CATSA reviewed. What were the findings of that review and what has been implemented?
Mr. McGarr: The findings or the changes coming out of the review, were announced by the minister at the beginning of February of this year. We are making changes to the configuration of some of the checkpoints. The outcome, I believe, is a smarter approach to delivering air transport security. We have committed to realizing efficiencies from some of the changes that have been made to the regulatory framework and to the procedures that CATSA has in place to conduct security screening.
These were the main outcomes of the review of CATSA's activities and spending conducted by Transport Canada.
Senator Meredith: In relation to challenges moving forward for CATSA, can you elaborate on some of those challenges and how you would like to see the government play a greater role in alleviating them? We have had others appear before us with respect to infrastructure dollars and more security. In terms of long-term spending, we have had amounts of $150 million over a five- to ten-year period.
What are some of the challenges that you can tell this committee about, looking forward to the fact that you have received $1.5 billion. Obviously, you are testing new equipment and so forth at the various airports, so what are some of the challenges?
Mr. McGarr: I believe that the funding levels that have been provided the corporation for our current circumstance are appropriate. The biggest challenge that we face is that the environment in which we are operating is so dynamic. We work diligently to ensure that we have the best available technology, but the technology, as with the threat that they are trying to detect, evolves so quickly.
I would say to you that our biggest challenge is to ensure that we are keeping pace with the evolution of both the threat and the available technologies and procedures to counter that threat, and to properly manage the risk that the industry is facing.
Senator Frum: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Could you illuminate how your relationship with the airlines works? Is there any kind of expectation or promise about how long it should take the average passengers to get through the major airports in the country? Do you have any targets for how long it should take per passenger? You talk about the new plan and the efficiencies. Do you have any plans to advance that? There are two questions there.
Mr. McGarr: We work very well with the airlines, both with the industry groups at a national level, and also at the airport level with the different stakeholders within the airport community. We have committed to a standard that will allow us to process a certain number of passengers per hour. We can never commit to the actual line-up because at times, through scheduling or rescheduling of flights or irregular operations, there can be a number of passengers that well exceeds our capacity. However, we have made a commitment on capacity to process 120 passengers per hour.
Senator Frum: There is a very interconnected relationship, and I think everyone has had the experience of sitting on a plane because, as I experienced last week, the line-up was so backed up that the plane could not leave. You can imagine the havoc that then plays on the entire schedule across the country. Obviously it is a very symbiotic dynamic.
Mr. McGarr: Absolutely.
Senator Frum: Currently it is 120 per hour?
Mr. McGarr: That is with the new procedures in place, and with some of the changes that we have made to the regulations.
Senator Frum: Do you keep track of what the average time is or should be, let us say at Pearson? Do you have targets in mind?
Mr. McGarr: Yes. For wait times?
Senator Frum: Yes.
Mr. McGarr: As I said, we can only manage the capacity side of the equation. We can ensure that at an airport, if there are say 10 screening lines, at 120 passengers per line we should process 1,200 passengers per hour. If 2,000 passengers are scheduled to leave in that hour, there will be a line-up, but our commitment is to manage the capacity side of the equation.
Senator Frum: How does that compare on an international scale? Do you take that measurement?
Mr. McGarr: It is quite varied, and the exact numbers are not easy to come by. The peak characteristics of travel means it really changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Senator Frum: The bottom line is that the airline industry, at the rate you are describing, is satisfied with the speed you are working at?
Mr. McGarr: As you said, it is a symbiotic relationship, and allows everyone to plan properly, not to schedule too many people, knowing how many we can process, et cetera. As long as we get together on it and we live up to our undertakings, things go well.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I will ask a supplementary question to that of Senator Frum, which I think is very important. It is understandable, and from my experiences travelling in Montreal and Toronto, that there are moments where we go through the security lines very rapidly, and times you show up and are wondering whether you will make your flight. Certainly there are peaks and valleys throughout the day when flights are taking off.
Can you explain to the committee in a little detail what the procedures are in practice right now, communication- wise, between the airport authorities and the airlines, to ensure that the airlines and airport authorities do not exceed your capacity? Are you advised in advance of when that bottleneck will occur at certain hours of the day, so you can prepare for them?
As I said, there are times that we go through security with no delays, and there are times when we think the line will never end.
Mr. McGarr: There is very good communication between the airlines, the airport authorities and CATSA, and the scheduling is done to ensure that the demand does not exceed the capacity. One variable, though, that no one can really control is when people show up for their flights. It happens that there is a rush at a peak period that exceeds our capacity, and that causes wait times longer than we would like to see. At other times, even though we are expecting a fair number of passengers, because the arrival times do not quite align there is absolutely no waiting.
This is very dynamic. The scheduling and the allocation of resources to it is a constant challenge, and we work with both the airlines and the airport authority to do it as well as we can.
The Deputy Chair: Are relationships with some airport authorities better than they are with others? In cases where the relationship is problematic, what difficulties does CATSA face?
Mr. McGarr: I can honestly say that across the country the relationships are excellent. There will be an event that is problematic or a circumstance that causes a challenge, but generally speaking the relationships are very positive with both the airport industry and the airline industry.
Senator Martin: Good evening. You mentioned quality assurance and Senator Zimmer asked about training. Having a teaching background, I want to come back to that topic because I believe that education and training can have a significant positive effect, because personnel is one of the most important elements in the success of what you do and what happens at the airlines.
My first question is about your quality assurance measures for selecting your officers. Everyone around this table is a frequent flyer. In my observation of officers at certain airports I have noticed that age does seem to make a difference. When there is a group of younger officers, they tend to socialize a lot, which does not set a professional tone, and that affects how passengers respond when they are going through security. When the staff exhibits a serious demeanour, it makes a real difference in how everything runs. What measures do you have in place to ensure that you hire the most suitable individuals?
Mr. McGarr: I agree entirely with what you said. I mentioned earlier that we are in the process of conducting a Request For Proposals to renegotiate our relationship with screening contractors. The quality assurance program that contractors propose will be of high importance in rating the proposals. The efforts that service providers will invest in recruiting, retaining and communicating with a competent workforce is one of the priorities of the entire RFP process.
We have in place at CATSA quality assurance programs on our mandated activities, and in our new relationship with service contractors we are asking them what program they will put in place to ensure that they recruit, retain and communicate with their employees.
I believe that this process will give us an opportunity to improve significantly over where we are today. We do not hire the screening officers that conduct the screening. They are hired by the service contractors with whom we contract.
Senator Martin: I apologize for having arrived a little bit late. I may be asking questions that you have already answered in your presentation.
When there are too many officers at a security check, which I understand has to do with the contractors, it seems to affect their focus. I know that you cannot always predict how many passengers will arrive at one time, but having too many officers sometimes detracts from the overall quality.
My other question is related to other sectors where there are challenges with hiring individuals with the right skills. Are you faced with such challenges, or are you aware through your contractors that there is a shortage of skilled people? It has been discussed that there are labour shortages in certain sectors, so we are looking at how to address that.
Mr. McGarr: Over the past couple of years, we have experienced challenges in some of the Prairie provinces due to the migration of many workers to other industries, especially the oil industry. We have put in place a number of incentive programs to try to recruit and retain. We are also investing considerably in trying to make the position of the screening officer much more than a job, but an opportunity for a profession, and this is helping us a lot.
There is still a bit of a challenge in Alberta, but it is much better than it was a couple of years ago.
Senator Merchant: It seems to be that at some airports the threshold that we must pass through buzzes while at others it does not. Are some of them more sensitive?
Mr. McGarr: There are a number of things that could cause that to happen. One is that some passengers are randomly selected for secondary screening measures in order that we comply with regulatory requirements.
Senator Merchant: Do you push a button or something? How do you select the passengers? It is just that when the officer says "come through" the thing will buzz at some airports, but at other airports it will not. Do those little structures have different sensitivities at different airports?
Mr. McGarr: No, there is only one setting. However, there are a host of factors that could cause different reactions. For some of them, it is only the proximity of other technologies to the archway; the position that the person is in within the archway, how close they are to the middle and things like that; or the speed at which a person passes through. There are all kinds of factors but there is only one setting across the country.
Senator Merchant: Second, with the pat-down and the full body scan, are you trying to move toward the full body scan? Are you now just on an experimental basis to see how people react?
I would imagine that is probably the best way to detect if someone is carrying something on their body, more than the pat-down. Is there more resistance to the full body scan than to the pat-down, for instance, and how do you deal with the complaints if someone complains?
Mr. McGarr: First, the full body scanner is made available as an alternative to a physical search. The vast majority of passengers choose the full body scanner, as opposed to a physical search. Well in excess of 90 per cent of passengers opt for the full body scanner rather than the pat-down search.
Senator Merchant: I am surprised because I always choose the pat-down search. I do not want anyone to look right through me. We do not have it in Regina, but here in Ottawa once in a while, because it is a random thing, they ask which you want.
If you have a complaint, how do you deal with it?
Mr. McGarr: First, all the complaints we receive are investigated and we ensure that we get back to complainants.
With respect to the full body scanner, there have been very few complaints. We have more complaints from people who take offence at the physical search. We try to explain to people that it is a regulated requirement that the screening officer conduct either a physical search or allow the passenger to use the full body scanner.
Senator Mercer: I want to go back to a question one of my colleagues talked about, which is the layout of airports' security. Many of the airports were designed pre-9/11 so this was not as big an issue as it is today.
The flexibility of design is somewhat limited. I know that in Halifax airport, where I fly in and out weekly, there has been some really big changes in the design, I think all to the positive. There have been changes here at the Ottawa airport, again, I think to the positive. However, at Pearson in Toronto, because of the physical layout, and in Calgary and Winnipeg, there does not seem to be that flexibility.
Do you give recommendations to the airports with regard to structural changes that you would like to see taken into account, given the budget and structural constraints that there might be?
Mr. McGarr: We work very closely with the airport authorities on the layout of screening checkpoints. We work with them also to try to work within the limitations that could exist —space, weight bearing or whatever that would be. We have been involved in many significant construction projects with airport authorities in order to accommodate the requirements of the technology needed for the screening.
Some airports do have space constraints, and they also have plans to expand that may be one or two years into the future. We work with them, offering our evaluation of what space, what configuration would best allow us to serve our mutual customers and get them through the security screening process.
Senator Mercer: Would the optimum design be one similar to what you have in Halifax and Ottawa, where one of your agents can direct people to a number of lines, as opposed to coming through and only having options like Pearson? In that airport, you go through a door and you are stuck in that line, even though the next line may be quicker. There is no agent there who can move you down that line because you have to go out the door and around.
Is that the optimum setup — the way it is set up in Halifax now and, to a certain extent, here in Ottawa?
Mr. McGarr: The doorway has not been a significant issue for CATSA. Where we have found the best value for the passenger is if we are able to have sufficient space for divesting and sufficient space for repacking after the examination. This is where we work with the airport authorities and try to manage their constraints of available space. The biggest benefit we can receive is having sufficient space for divesting and repacking.
Senator Mercer: To clarify one statistic you gave to Senator Frum, you said 120 passengers per hour; that is per what?
Mr. McGarr: Per lane.
Senator Mercer: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Meredith: Picking up on what Senator Martin spoke about with respect to education of your internal staff, what have you done in terms of education of travellers and the processes that they have to go through, with respect to brochures they may have received after they have gone through the process?
Then to pick up on Senator Mercer's comments — and Senator Frum also mentioned the number of individuals going through the lines. From my personal experience, some booths have a male and a female check person. You go through the booth, as the senator spoke about, and then you have to stand there and wait. If there is a male and a female in the same line, there is a logjam taking place until that person is able to check that individual.
What will you put in place to alleviate that? I am asking two questions: the internal education piece; and the alleviation of logjams — which would affect the statistics, the ability to move 120 passengers through the line. There is certainly a logjam that happens when you go to a female who cannot check you and you have to wait for the male and they are checking someone, so you are waiting outside the booth there.
Mr. McGarr: If I may take the second point first, we do promote same-sex screening. If the passenger is a male, we do want a male officer to do the screening of that passenger. We are looking at allowing passengers an opportunity to redivest. Very often passengers will have perhaps a cell phone on them that they forgot about and the alarm goes off. If they had the opportunity of taking a step back, taking the phone out and putting it through, they would be able to go through a second pass and not trigger an alarm and then carry on their way. We are very much focused on promoting the flow of passengers and not seeing that bottleneck occur.
The re-divesting that we are piloting in Toronto appears to be something that will give us good benefit. It should help to alleviate that log jam.
I am sorry; could you refresh my memory on the training question?
Senator Meredith: My question is with respect to the education of staff or contractors in terms of what is required of them.
Mr. McGarr: As well it was about the passengers.
Senator Meredith: Yes.
Mr. McGarr: Just prior to coming here, we were reviewing the new e-learning modules for the training program. This electronic version will make computer-based training available. It is very comprehensive and focuses not only on the security outcomes that we are looking for but also on the absolute requirement that screening officers conduct themselves professionally, with respect for the passengers who are their customers.
With respect to the travelling public, we have undertaken a number of initiatives with the tourism industry, the travel agent industry and the airlines to work with airport authorities to create links on all of the varied websites and produce promotional material. Even on the CATSA website, available for all travellers, we have a check list of what to pack and whether it can be packed in carry-on baggage or must be packed in checked luggage. It serves as a very helpful reminder for a number of travellers to not forget things regardless of whether it is packed in carry-on or checked luggage.
We are developing a number of tools to try to engage passengers as early as possible in the process so that they prepare themselves as well as possible for the screening experience that they will undertake when they arrive at the airport.
Senator Meredith: That message still has to get out. You said that you have a website but who will take the time to go to a CATSA website to look at what they should pack? In terms of the communication and education of the general public, there is some room for improvement in the terms of what is allowed and not allowed. That might be something of a recommendation for you to take back and improve upon.
Mr. McGarr: I agree. However, I would like to assure you that the uptake on those products has been very encouraging over the last while. We are tracking in the right direction.
Senator Meredith: I will ask about the controversial scan. Is the image of the scan deleted immediately?
Mr. McGarr: Absolutely.
Senator Meredith: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. McGarr and Mr. Duguay, thank you for your participation in the committee and for helping us to do our work. We appreciate your presentation today and your answers to our questions.
I remind all members of the committee that the next meeting will take place on Tuesday, March 1, at 9:30 a.m.
(The committee adjourned.)