Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2007

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

No, it's how many agreements we've entered into.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

We should be able to get that information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. That's the number of agreements, not the number of people, I understand.

Mr. Cullen, you can take a couple of minutes.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Superintendent, you've probably reviewed some of the testimony. We had Mr. Tom Bulmer here. Basically, what I understood him to say was that the possibility that this person—Mr. Young, I guess it was—would commit harm was quite readily predictable. I thought I heard you say earlier that what happened in this particular case was not, in your judgment, avoidable at all.

So the dilemma we have is that we are hearing you say this and we're hearing Mr. Bulmer say something that seems to me to be quite the opposite. Could you comment on that?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I'm absolutely, 100% convinced that nobody would have been able to predict what happened in that case, and I would be shocked if any of the committee members come to any other conclusion, once you see the report out of British Columbia. You'll see the history on this person. I think it would have been impossible to predict any behaviour of a type anywhere near that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

We look forward to the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to thank our witnesses again for coming before the committee. We appreciate it very much.

Committee members, we're going to suspend for a minute before we go into the briefings from the Department of Transport.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to reconvene this meeting.

We are now on the second part of our Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 49. At this point we're going to entertain a briefing on the no-fly list.

I'd like to welcome as witnesses before the committee Mr. Brion Brandt, the director of security policy for the Department of Transport, and Linda Savoie, the director of access to information, privacy and reconsideration, and executive services. We welcome you both to the committee.

I understand, Ms. Savoie, that you have a brief that you're going to deliver to the committee.

[Linda L. Savoie, Director, Access to Information, Privacy and Reconsideration, Executive Services, Department of Transport]

Yes, I have a short opening statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You can have ten minutes, or if you need a little more than that, we're flexible.

[Linda L. Savoie]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead.

[Linda L. Savoie]

You invited us to speak to you about the Office of Reconsideration. The invitation followed the testimony given by my colleague, Marc Grégoire, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Security and Safety at this committee on March 1, 2007. At that time, he described briefly the Passenger Protect Program, the procedure involved in issuing a no-fly order, and the reconsideration process.

I am here today to describe the process in more detail, to tell you how my office works, and of course to answer your questions.

I would like to start by giving you some general information about the Office before I get into the reconsideration procedure. I will say a few words about our mandate. Our role is to offer a simple, free remedy to individuals who receive a negative decision in the context of two different Transport Canada programs. The first is the Marine Transportation Security Clearance Program, and the second, the one you are interested in, is the Passenger Protect Program.

Our clients are not just passengers who have been put on the no-fly list, they are also marine workers whose security clearance has been turned down or cancelled. In both cases, however, our office allows the applicant to submit his or her case for consideration by individuals other than those who made the initial recommendation to the minister.

We expect to play an important role in the Passenger Protect Program, not only for passengers who want to challenge the minister's decision to put their name on the list, but also—and I would say especially—with those where there may be a problem of mistaken identity.

I will now give you some more concrete information about my office. We are located here in Ottawa. We report to the Assistant Deputy Minister for corporate services at Transport Canada. We are open from Monday to Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. We have officers who look after the official request, who answer questions and concerns raised by applicants, and by the general public, and who do identity checks. In addition to these officers, there are independent security consultants hired on contract to conduct the reviews. Each year, my office reports on our activities to the minister—the number of applications and the results of the reviews.

I would now like to speak more specifically about the review process, particularly in the case of passengers who are not allowed to board an aircraft. For people who like visual representation, there is a chart outlying the process in the material we distributed earlier.

As I describe this process, you will note that it is fairly linear and straightforward. The intent is not to create bureaucratic obstacles, but rather to keep the process as simple as possible.

Does everyone have this document? All right.

Once the passenger has been denied boarding, the process begins with the individual submitting a written application to the office as soon as possible after being denied boarding. There is no set time limit for this. The application should outline the grounds for the reconsideration, and for privacy and for accuracy purposes we will require that it includes documents that confirm the identity of the applicant. There is a case officer available during regular office hours to assist the applicant in making this application to our office.

At that point, the applications--and that doesn't appear on your chart because it's an administrative function, but it is of significance--will be sorted according to whether the applicant is seeking reconsideration as a result of an error in identity, or is challenging the basis for being placed on a specified persons list.

In the first case, where it's a matter of an error in identity, our office will obtain from the applicant any new element of information, personal information primarily, that's necessary to differentiate the applicant from the person listed. Once the error is confirmed, we will take the measures to ensure that corrections and additions are made everywhere necessary to eliminate the error.

Getting back to my chart, this describes the next scenario where the applicant is in fact challenging the basis for being placed on the list. At that moment, the office will be assigning the file to one of the independent security advisers. The review process should differ, depending on whether or not we have new information that is submitted by the applicant. In the absence of new information--the grey arrows on the right-hand side of the chart--the adviser will conduct a review of the file to assess whether the information it contains could reasonably have led to a decision to place the person on a list.

The adviser then provides a report outlining any areas of concern that are apparent from the file, and submits an opinion as to the need for the minister to reassess the matter. The applicant is informed of both the recommendation of the office of reconsideration to the minister and of the final decision of the minister.

In the cases where the office of reconsideration receives new relevant elements of information--we're now on the left-hand side of your chart--our office is going to work with the program to ensure that the appropriate investigative bodies, and that would be CSIS and the RCMP, validate or invalidate this new information. The rest of the process follows through the same way once we've received this validation or not.

Timewise, our aim is to conduct this review within a 30-day timeframe. This being said, I completely realize that some of these files will be too complex to be disposed of in 30 days, but we will be making every effort to meet the standard we've set for ourselves.

A record of the reviews that we will be undertaking will be kept, and as I mentioned in French, an annual report will be submitted to the minister to ensure that lessons learned allow for the adjustments to be made as needed during the course of this program.

To conclude, while it's impossible to anticipate every possible scenario, we think this process will offer valuable assistance to all the passengers seeking reconsideration. It may, however, be particularly appreciated by those who are struggling with an unfamiliar process to have their identity distinguished from that of an individual with an identical name who is the person who is posing the threat to aviation security.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

You said that the process takes about 30 days to review if there's information about the person. What is the length of time if it's a mistaken identity? For some people, this would really violate their rights to move about.

[Linda L. Savoie]

In those cases we anticipate it will be much quicker. However, it depends on how quickly and how thoroughly the applicant provides us the information that will allow us to distinguish this person from the person on the list, so our aim is to conduct those in an expedited manner. The 30 days I was referring to is for a real contested file with an independent adviser assigned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, I realize that, but if he produces a passport, could it happen right there and then?

[Linda L. Savoie]

It could if it's sufficient to distinguish from the person who's on the list, but this may or may not be enough. We'll have to compare the information that's on the list and compare what's in the passport.

One scenario is if this passenger who was denied boarding has given names--first names in English, les prénoms, and multiple prénoms, and these are different from the ones on the list. We can do that rather quickly, but that complexity is going to depend on what the element is that distinguishes the person from the person on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I have more questions, but really I am abusing my....

Okay, who's first? Monsieur Ménard, go ahead.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Will Mr. Brandt be making his presentation later? Are we supposed to question Ms. Savoie first, and Mr. Brandt later?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Brandt, my indication was that you did not have a presentation.

[Brion Brandt, Director, Security Policy, Department of Transport]

I do not have a presentation. All we have is Ms. Savoie's presentation. If there are any questions about the Passenger Protect Program, I am here to answer them.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So we can question Mr. Brandt as well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Absolutely, yes.

Okay, Mr. Volpe. That does not count against your time. Go ahead.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Ms. Savoie and Monsieur Brandt.

I really want to follow four general questions, if you don't mind. I read the transcripts of the initial presentation made before this committee, some three months ago. Some concerns still exist with respect to how your name gets put on the list. Now, I know that's the exclusive purview of the Minister of Transport and that the Minister of Transport will consult, or may consult, with other agencies: CSIS, RCMP, Homeland Security, Defense, Interpol, and my next-door neighbour. Do I have that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead, Mr. Brandt