Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2007

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much for coming this morning, gentlemen.

I'd like to return to the person who is told there's a discrepancy as to their name. It probably isn't the person--let's go back to Mr. Ménard. When Mr. Ménard shows up at the airport, he's told he cannot receive a boarding pass but there's some question as to whether it is the real Mr. Ménard. Let's say his name is Paul Ménard and the name Serge comes up. You say that there's a system that will verify whether it is or is not the person in question.

Have you a length of time that this would take? Is it minutes? Hours? Could it be one or two days? Because what I'm thinking of is you have a family, perhaps, that's going on vacation or a person who's going to Vancouver from Toronto on business and there is a clerical error or there's a similarity that precludes his ability or her ability to get a boarding pass. What are the timelines?

[Marc Grégoire]

We're talking minutes, and it has to be minutes, because the flight has to go, and people don't come in days before their flight, they come in an hour or an hour and a half before their flight. The whole process has to be handled in a matter of minutes. Most probably, if you put yourself in a situation where you're at the airport and there's a big lineup there, the person would probably be asked to step aside for a few minutes while papers are verified.

Then the airline agent would call the Transport Canada office 24-7 and give the Transport Canada officer information about the person, additional information like date of birth, which would be found on the ID card. The Transport Canada officer would in most cases be able to immediately say that this is not the person on the list, there is no issue with that person.

In the odd, remote cases where the person is in fact the person on the list, depending on the gravity of the situation, the information will be given back immediately by Transport Canada to the airline in the sense of an emergency direction, prohibiting the airline to board the passenger. At the same time, the airline will be asked to give a sheet or a paper to the passenger refused, telling the passenger he has the right to ask for reconsideration of his name being put on the list.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Let's just explore that a little bit further.

We're dealing with a lot of hypothetical situations here. We are living in Canada, and we are living in a free country. We're living in a country where you have access to the courts should you suffer any consequences with regard to a refusal.

In this case, going back to some of the previous questions, the question was what if the person receives the green light—and we're talking red lights and green lights—to go, and the airline for whatever reason says not to go. If it were a business case or a lost vacation, would you feel it reasonable that the person would have redress to go to the civil courts and get compensation that way?

[Marc Grégoire]

I really cannot comment on this. I understand this has happened in the past five years. There is no provision for the Government of Canada to provide any money for such passengers, but passengers may sue airlines if they think they have a case.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

The RCMP is notified that the person cannot receive a boarding pass, and the local police will then take the appropriate action, should it be a person who is.... You did mention that it would be the local police?

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Okay.

Has the Department of Transport provided any training to the local police as to what the processes are and what they probably should or shouldn't do in cases like this? I suppose it would be easier for folks listening to your testimony today if you would go through the scenario of what kind of training the police get, and what might occur in a situation such as that.

In other words, the person can't fly. Are they arrested? Are they taken into custody? Can you walk us through that, please?

[Marc Grégoire]

It depends. If we're talking about somebody who cannot fly because he or she represents a threat to the flight only, but is not a threat to society without a mandate of arrest, then there is no issue; there is no one to be arrested. But if it's a criminal under research or at liberty who is found by the airline ticket agent, of course the RCMP will deal with it with the local police. Transport Canada's role stops at making sure the person doesn't board the aircraft. The rest of it is a police matter.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

You notify the police, the person can't fly, and you simply tell the police, all we have is the person is not permitted to fly, we believe they are a risk. And there's no more information, so the police would then, in all probability, not take any action.

[Marc Grégoire]

There is no more information from Transport Canada, but this is why Transport Canada will immediately talk to the RCMP operation centre, because if there are police matters to be dealt with, they can be dealt with by the RCMP and the police together.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I'd like to go back to something Mr. Comartin was questioning you on—and obviously he feels exasperated--in that there are issues of state secrecy regarding a person needing to know why they're on the no-fly list. You weren't able to provide him with sufficient information, because that information is a matter of national security.

Would I be correct in assuming that the reason you don't give the person this information is that they may find out from whence the information came and then jeopardize the whole system?

[Marc Grégoire]

That would be an assumption, but the criteria are public. We have published the conditions under which we will put somebody on the list, in most cases. These are very serious: you are or have been involved in a terrorist group; it can be reasonably suspected that you will endanger the security of the aircraft; or you've been convicted of serious, life-threatening crimes against aviation security, etc. These are not necessarily the only criteria used, but they show the seriousness of the situation here, and—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So the person would know? You would tell them and list the reasons why they could be on the no-fly list.

So the person asks, “Why am I on the no-fly list?” You will say, “Because you belong to a terrorist organization.” You won't tell them that?

[Marc Grégoire]

I don't know. If Osama bin Laden asked us why he is on the list, we may tell him, “Because you represent a risk.”

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Does a person have the ability to find out what category they are under? Is there a system involved with that? How would a person access it?

[Marc Grégoire]

No, there's no—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

No system.

[Marc Grégoire]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, that completes round one. We're not going to get through round two.

Ms. Barnes, go ahead.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I have some short questions, and please give short answers.

You give emergency direction if the answer is no when somebody presents themselves. What if the answer is yes? Is there some sort of confirmation back? If I give my credit card to a cab driver, he gets a confirmation number back. Is there something you have in a protocol to show that it's a go-ahead, or is it just a verbal?

[Marc Grégoire]

Brion is dying to answer this one.

[Brion Brandt]

The point is that the air carriers are there to transport people, right? That's the first assumption we operate under. So the whole point of the program is designed to keep those people who pose an immediate threat to aviation security from flying. So we allow the air carriers to do their job, which is transporting people, unless there's a circumstance in which there's somebody on the list, and we would issue an emergency directive saying that the person cannot fly.

So the green light really isn't necessary. Everybody gets a green light except those people who are told they cannot fly, as there's an emergency directive.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you. You've answered the question.

When does the office of reconsideration open?

[Marc Grégoire]

It has opened. It has been operational for about a month, even though the program has not started. We have staff in position and they're hiring people.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

Other than the courts, is this the only way a person who finds himself on a no-fly list can appeal that decision, get input into that decision?