What I am saying is that the type of behavioural profiling I mentioned in my opening statement--buying a one-way ticket, paying cash, not checking baggage and this sort of thing, or the way someone is acting, in a fugue, for example, at an airport--is not based on one of the prohibited grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act. So we would not find it to be discriminatory if someone were given a secondary screening because they were in a fugue or had bought a one-way ticket.
Just to clarify, what the commission did is we commissioned an overall examination of the literature by a researcher, a consultant, who then gave us a report. And I am speaking from this report when I talk to you about the various concerns that have been raised.
When we are talking about racial or ethnic origin profiling--in other words, going to secondary screening because you're a member of a certain race--the research, the literature review, has noted a lack of scientific rigour in studies conducted to date about profiling overall, and has shown little scientific support for profiling at all, much less when it comes to infrequently occurring incidents, such as a terrorist attack, a school shooting, or this type of thing.