Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2007

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

We're talking about domestic. Don't talk about internationally.

[Allan Kagedan]

Okay. There's a concession, then, internationally and so on—

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

You have a list of IDs. Forget about the passport; talk about the other list. My argument is on the list of IDs that are acceptable, and many of those could be falsified very easily.

[Allan Kagedan]

Okay, thank you.

For U.S. and international, you need a passport. On domestic ID, the question is, can these be falsified? Again, I would put it to you that ID can be falsified. This is a small number of individuals. The question is, what if the police or someone are tailing them? Well, we do not live in a police society, we do not live in a society where everyone is all-knowing. Someone can be looked for and not found. There can still be an awareness of falsification of ID, even those...[Inaudible—Editor]...this is a small number of very specific people.

On the question of conviction and suspicion, yes, we are looking at a—

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Those are the people you are trying to catch. You're not trying to catch the ordinary people; they are no problem. We're trying to catch those people who have lots of assets to falsify IDs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You can come back in the next round.

[Allan Kagedan]

On the question of conviction and suspicion, this is a very important question. What we're looking at is individuals who may be in Canada, but they may not be; they may be anywhere. We're not in a position to convict anyone for something done in another place. These are individuals who we believe would threaten air passengers on flights. We had a threatened incident in London in August 2006, the allegation of people getting on aircraft and bringing down 10 aircraft over the Atlantic, so this is what we're talking about. They were not convicted at the time. Would it have been a good idea to keep them off the plane? I think it would have been.

We're very concerned about civil rights, but we're also concerned about the human right of security of person. Those things do have to be held in a balance, and a balance that benefits Canadians.

As for the sharing and the issue of privacy, the air carriers are not permitted to share with anyone. By regulation, by an MOU that we're signing, the minister has authority to penalize the air carriers and can bring into question their operations if they violate the law of Canada. So there are very stringent measures to protect against any further sharing. If there is any foreign government...if that were to exist, there's the possibility of a dialogue that could in fact prevent individuals from being put on another list. You're saying, okay, we're concerned about security, but you don't have to be concerned about that person. Those possibilities are there of enhancing the privacy of these individuals as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panellists.

I'm a little concerned. I think Mr. Chan has the Chicken Little concept here when he describes 20 million Canadians being involved—

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Anybody who is above 12 years old.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Sure, anybody travelling. But with all due respect, we're looking at the safety of Canadians, and I think that all of us—it doesn't matter which political party or affiliation—should be concerned about air safety. I think some of the issues Mr. Chan brings up are red herrings. They're way out there.

But if you have the knowledge, how many of the 9/11 perpetrators had criminal convictions?

[Allan Kagedan]

To my knowledge, none of them had criminal convictions.

[An hon. member]

So they wouldn't have been on the list.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

They would have been on the list, because they were suspects and they were known. They may very well have been on the list.

I think that's the point that Canadians have to understand: this is a very, very narrow focus. It's not anybody with a criminal conviction; it's a narrow focus of a danger or threat to aviation safety. The suspect has to be some sort of threat to aviation safety. Am I correct on that?

[Allan Kagedan]

That's right.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

So when we look at this, we're not looking at—and I think you used these words before—petty criminals at all; we're looking at people from a specific, narrow perspective who are threats to Canadians' safety. So we get all tied up in some other “what if?” situations. They're not really valid. What's valid, and I don't disagree with my colleagues, is that some people for whatever reason will end up on the list. But if we have faith in the system—and that's why we're here, to build that faith in the system—we have to understand and you have to get us convinced that the system is very narrowly focused and there will be few people on that list.

I think what we're looking for is some sense that we're looking for that narrow focus, aviation safety, not somebody who's a petty criminal ending up on the list who might have multiple name matches in Canada. We're looking at Canadians; we're not looking at the Americans. We don't want to offend anybody, but at the same time, it's the safety of Canadians and it's the inconvenience to Canadians. So I think you need to convince us that it is a very narrow focus: it is purely on aviation safety.

[Allan Kagedan]

Well, look, we have our guidelines. We've explained the program. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I think when the program comes into effect you will not see the massive dislocations that have been described.

Different countries do things differently. There are different health care systems, and so on, but everyone is concerned about health care, and everyone is concerned about public safety.

I guess different countries handle it differently. We have our own standards. We have our Privacy Act and other laws, and so on. Everything we're doing is completely compliant with all those legal requirements, and we're working within that context to try to achieve a program that balances out those needs.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

I think all of us now have the information, thanks to a staff member here, of the ID. One of the things I noticed is that it says, “The following pieces of valid government-issued ID may be counted toward the requirements of the Identity Screening Regulations”.

Coming from a policing background, as my friend does, we were always taught as police officers that one of the biggest tools we had was the tool of discretion. When I read that, that doesn't say those are the only ones issued. There have been a number of questions about this card or that card, and my friend mentioned the NEXUS card, which would seem to be logical. I'm assuming, and tell me if I'm wrong, that those are the standard ones, that those are the ones that are accepted, but that there will be some discretion used by people who are doing the screening at the airports.

[Allan Kagedan]

Absolutely, there is discretion. And just to make one point, in all of aviation security, we can't do it by ourselves. The police can't do it by themselves. It is a cooperative venture that involves government, police, the air carriers, and air passengers as well. We're all working together, so there will be some discretion exercised as to valid government ID.

When people get on a plane, we do not want people to look at others and say, “You look funny. I think you're a threat.” We want people to know that, in the view of the Canadian government and all the information that we have, everyone on that plane is valid. That's another way the program could have distinct advantages.

There have been situations where people look at others on the plane and say, “That person looks funny to me.” Well, they may. We can't change that attitude. People are going to have attitudes. What we're saying is that the people who get on the plane, based on the information we have, are validly there, and that should reassure everyone. There's a role for government in assuring and reassuring, and it can affect behaviour both in terms of security but also in people treating each other decently.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

All of us talk about the different levels. So this is implemented; Canadians know it, terrorists know it, and I'm sure everyone knows it. But when we talk about a level and deterring people, I know from a little background previously that sometimes a little sticker on a window deters people from breaking into buildings, and I think you used that analogy when you talked about the stolen car.

So I recognize what you're saying is that this is just one other part of the whole equation, and I think Canadians also understand that there are different forms of deterrents that are extremely...if not impossible, very difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness. But I think it is a given that knowledge becomes somewhat of a deterrent, and I, for one, think the right decision was made in 2004 to go ahead with this kind of program--not that it will be perfect, but we can fix it as we go ahead.

So it's my opinion that from the perspective of Canadians, this might turn out to be a good start. It might be the perfect start. But at least it does provide some protection for Canadians.

You don't have to respond to that. That's just my statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

But you may respond if you wish.

[Allan Kagedan]

Again, going back to 2004, it was a little closer to the events of 9/11. There was discussion over a period of three years on these matters, on the very section that has given legal basis to this program.

We were a little closer to that particular event. Unfortunately, we saw events in Russia in 2004 where two planes were brought down. We saw threats in 2006, just one summer ago, in the U.K., directed at North America, unfortunately. We heard reports in recent weeks in Saudi Arabia of people training to be suicide pilots, again using aircraft. We have the unfortunate fact that, back to 1995, with Operation Bojinka, there was an interest among terrorist groups in bringing down aircraft.

It's very unfortunate, but it's not really smart or safe to just wish it away and pretend that doesn't exist. What can we do, what can we do in a balanced manner, and what do we do in a cooperative manner, where everyone is involved, to try to keep things on a road ahead?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll now go to the official opposition again. Ms. Barnes, please.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kagedan, you're the chief, security policy, aviation security and emergency preparedness. I understand that's your title. Is that your full-time position?

[Allan Kagedan]

Yes.