Last Wednesday, the Liberals and the NDP hosted a joint round table on aviation security on Parliament Hill. Because of Parliament’s prorogation, no Conservative MPs attended. It was thus a fairly partisan affair.
Nonetheless, because of my past role as Chief, Marine Transportation Security Regulatory Affairs and Chief, Air Cargo Security Regulations, and because of my ongoing concern about accountability in the aviation sector and at Transport Canada, I took an interest in the session. I was accompanied by Hugh Danford, a former aviation safety inspector and pilot who was run out of Transport Canada because he spoke out against the cover-up of the causes of the 1999 crash that killed Damien Samuel Hancock at Davis Inlet.
Despite not being on the list, NDP MP Dennis Bevington’s legislative assistant Doug Johnson let us in (thanks, Doug). There was a smattering of reporters, including CBC blogger Kady O’Malley, who recorded the proceedings pretty faithfully – although she arrived an hour late so missed a bit.
The speakers at the round table were, at first glance, fairly impressive. Notables who spoke were:
- Chantal Bernier, Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who explained the balancing act between security and privacy rights, with a focus on the new millimeter wave scanners (popularly called whole body scanners) being deployed in airports.
- Michael Skrobica, VP at the Air Transport Association of Canada, who expressed confidence that flying is more secure than it was before the 9/11 attacks, and noted that Canada had just been audited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with only a few “minor” problems. He felt that Canada should stay the course with current methods.
- Nick Rapagna, VP of Air Line Pilots Association, Canada Board, who argued that the real threat is ideologically motivated individuals and that to build a system that works proactively we must focus on beavioural profiling and the development of a “trust-based” system of security.
- Rafi Sela, President of AR Challenges (by phone from Israel), who stated flatly that we don’t have a security system in North America, but rather a set of equipment and procedures that try to do what an integrated security system should. He recommended using a model closer to what the Israelis use and argued that it could also be cheaper.
- Mark Salter, from the University of Ottawa, who emphasized that aviation security issue is a public issue and that its development should not be restricted to a closed circle. He believes that the risk management model isn’t appropriate and that instead we should be using a “rights-based” model. He didn’t think the Israeli model was appropriate for Canada and preferred the full body scanners.
- Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel of the CCLA, who noted that air travel should now be viewed as a necessity and not discretionary, and that accordingly aviation security should be developed with due consideration of civil liberties.
This is a very rough description of the presentations, of course, and should any of the participants read this, I invite them to make a comment.
It was disappointing — but unsurprising — that Transport Canada didn’t send a representative. Perhaps they were watching on CPAC, but I doubt it. This is typical of Transport Canada’s approach to aviation security regulator development — one which Dr. Salter quite rightly criticizes.
His comments about the closed nature of aviation security were right on the mark, and get to the heart of the accountability issue. Right now we have a situation in which officials scramble from one crisis to the next, with key policy decisions — if they can be called that — being made less on evidence and expertise than on politics and convenience. And what happens when people who happen to fill key positions at Transport Canada or CATSA make bad decisions? Nothing, right now, because the public isn’t privy to either the reasoning or the decisions. We’re expected to trust the people in charge. But I know from personal experience the kind of tail-chasing that goes on at Transport Canada. Oh, the stories I could tell.
The problem is compounded by the fact that Transport Canada management itself lacks the depth in experience and training to make it a true security organization. This kind of separation of expertise from authority is, perhaps, symptomatic of most of the federal government and, for example, may be the direct cause of poor policy and decisions that led to the 2008 listeriosis outbreak.
Similarly, Mr. Rapagna was right about the need for a different approach, shifting from reactive changes to security procedures to a focus on the more consistent human factor. That said, it seemed to me that the only person who really understood security was Mr. Sela. Again, this is unsurprising as he’s a professional out of Israel.
Less impressive was Mr. Skrobica, an accountant who attempted to pass himself off as a security expert. He isn’t, and his suggestions that everything is fine made him sound like a mouthpiece for Transport Canada. Mr. Sela quite rightly criticized him by pointing out that ICAO standards are by no means a measure of best practices in security. But perhaps Mr. Skrobica likes the status quo, in particular with respect to air cargo security.
On the “rights” side, I found Dr. Salter’s proposition that we adopt a rights-based approach to security puzzling. Admittedly he didn’t have much time, but he didn’t explain what this would mean, how it would be implemented or what the trade-offs might be.
Ms. Bernier gave the consummate bureaucrat’s speech, voicing concern while absolutely avoiding any kind of committed position. She was satisfied that CATSA had done its privacy impact analysis of whole body scanners to the required standard — but that didn’t mean that she endorsed it. Whew. I wonder how many reviews and edits that went through before reaching the round table.
As to Ms. Des Rosiers, she did the best she could as tail-end Charlie. Her point about air travel being a necessity in today’s world was a good one. She also expressed concern about the ridiculously entitled Passenger Protect Program – the regulations for which I worked on, by the way. From a security perspective, she’s right — it’s not a great program. After all, known terrorists aren’t going to travel under their own names and it doesn’t work to catch people with no history of terrorist activity. Furthermore, it was originally sold as something the U.S. would accept as equal to their own, far-reaching list. That hasn’t happened.
One last point: although I am sure that Mr. Sela must know the term, nobody mentioned the phrase “security theatre“. Security theatre is the accepted industry term for, as Wikipedia puts it, “security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security.” This is what Mr. Sela meant when he spoke of North American aviation security. He is not alone in his opinion — many experts agree with him.
So, in summary, there was much hot air and some substance. As to motives, Mr. Bevington’s interest in the aviation sector seems genuine, but the Liberals are the original architects / overseers of the mess at Transport Canada. I very much doubt they would change anything if they were in power now.
Despite this, it did at least draw attention to the problem, and for that I have to tip my hat. I just won’t hold my breath for anything to change.
1 Comment