C-17 Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 5, 2002

0900

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.))

0905

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada)

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Wayne Easter

0920

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

0925

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Wayne Easter

0930

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Wayne Easter

0935

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service)

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

0940

Mr. Wayne Easter

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Wayne Easter

0945

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC)

0950

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Ward Elcock

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Ward Elcock

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Ward Elcock

Ms. Beth Phinney

0955

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Wayne Easter

Ms. Beth Phinney

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Ms. Beth Phinney

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Wayne Easter

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Ms. Beth Phinney

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

1000

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

Mr. Wayne Easter

1005

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

1010

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Wayne Easter

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

CANADA

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

NUMBER 003

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)) Mr. Minister, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to order this Legislative Committee on Bill C-17.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I would like you to maybe take a moment to introduce the officials you have with you, and then you could proceed to your 10-minute presentation. We will follow with questions in five-minute rounds.

The honourable Solicitor General, Mr. Wayne Easter.

¿ (0905)

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With me this morning I have Nicole Jauvin, deputy minister; Patricia Hassard; and Commissioner Zaccardelli. Ward Elcock, director of CSIS, will be here shortly.

I believe you have received a copy of the draft regulations that will accompany this bill eventually. Hopefully we got them to you in time so that committee members had a chance to review them.

I am pleased to be here to address the data sharing regime as set out in proposed section 4.82 of Bill C-17.

Before I begin my official remarks, I do want to compliment the committee on its task. Although here at this committee today I expect we may debate, we may differ, we may even disagree, that's the process of democracy, and I believe very much that committees have a tremendous responsibility and job to do in terms of analyzing legislation and coming forward with recommendations so that, at the end of the day, we have the best legislation available for Canadians.

Proposed section 4.82 of Bill C-17 is a very important amendment to promote the safety of Canadians. It will give our law enforcement and security agencies an invaluable tool to improve transportation security. It will also increase the government's capacity to prevent terrorist acts and to respond quickly should a threat arise.

The government has listened to the concerns raised about the previous proposals contained in Bill C-55. We have taken these concerns into account and we believe that the improvements we have made strike the right balance between protecting privacy and keeping Canadians safe.

Let me briefly explain how the data sharing regime will work. Airlines currently collect personal information about passengers. With this bill, airlines would be required to share passenger information, when requested, with a small core group of specially designed RCMP and CSIS officers for the purposes of transportation and national security. Designated officers could disclose passenger information to a third party only in limited circumstances, such as to a peace officer if there was an immediate threat to life, health, or safety. Let me assure you that designated officers should not have unrestricted access to passenger information.

This provision is important for several reasons. The RCMP requires passenger information to deliver an effective air carrier protection program. In practical terms, the RCMP needs to know if there are any potentially dangerous passengers on flights so they can assign aircraft protective officers to cover them. Likewise, CSIS needs the information to identify known and suspected terrorists before they board a plane. I don't think that it would be in the interests of Canadians to deny the RCMP and CSIS access to this information if it could avert a terrorist incident or protect Canadians from potential harm.

I would also like to explain how this provision has been improved since its predecessor, as contained in Bill C-55. The privacy commissioner noted that the RCMP's proposed authority to access air passenger lists to identify persons with outstanding warrants for serious offences went beyond the counter-terrorism intent of the bill.

To respond to this concern, we've tightened up the regime, so that RCMP designated officers would only be able to access passenger information for the purposes of transportation security. However, during the course of analyzing passenger information to check for terrorists and other high-risk persons, the RCMP would still be able to notify the local police if they identified a fugitive wanted for serious crimes identified in the regulations.

To ensure that you may carefully review how this proposal would work, as I said in the beginning, I have forwarded a copy of the draft regulations to you. These regulations are designed to ensure that RCMP designated officers may only disclose passenger information to assist with the execution of warrants for offences subject to a penalty of five years or more, offences of such a serious nature that ignoring them could put public safety at risk. The offences listed in the draft regulations are directly related to terrorist or transportation security threats such as the use of explosives or participation in a terrorist group, as well as violent offences, serious drug offences, and organized crime.

I believe that Canadians would expect the RCMP to take action to help arrest dangerous fugitives in the interests of public safety. If we had the means to identify a dangerous wanted criminal or a terrorist from another country and apprehend them before they could harm someone else, shouldn't we make sure that we use these tools?

¿ (0910)

Some concerns have been raised about the potential of keeping information. I would therefore like to emphasize that the proposed data sharing regime would not be used to create megafiles, to track the travel patterns of law-abiding Canadians. This proposal includes important safeguards to respect the privacy of Canadians. For example, all passenger information would have to be destroyed within seven days unless it was reasonably required for the restricted purpose of transportation security or the investigation of terrorist threats. Also, the RCMP and CSIS would each be required to conduct an annual review of information retained by designated officers. If retention could no longer be justified, the information would have to be destroyed. These safeguards were included in the data sharing regime to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected.

The tragic events of September 11 created a new security environment in Canada and throughout the world. Canadian airports and the Canadian travelling public remain susceptible to terrorists and other criminal acts. We need Bill C-17 to ensure air transportation security and prevent terrorism and other crimes before they happen in Canadian skies.

Bill C-17 reflects the commitment of the federal government to do all it can to ensure the safety of Canadians. I believe that Bill C-17 strikes the right balance between our collective rights to security and the right of each and every Canadian to their privacy and freedom.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would now welcome any questions.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Colleagues, I just want to remind you of a housekeeping matter for ourselves here. But for the purposes of members on the committee, please make sure that your respective whip offices maintain the membership of the committee in the fashion it was designed to be. In this case, I'll speak with some of you who are presently not on the roster as members. So I will recognize other members first.

I'll begin, of course, this first round of five minutes with Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope I'm in compliance with all of the regulations.

Thank you very much for that brief outline. You really did not touch on an element of the regulations that concerns me. I've spoken up in the House on this. I've not received any answer to my concerns. So I would like to raise them at this point.

The bill has been renumbered and reintroduced many times, and every time I raise the same concern, but the proposed amendments do not change in regard to this matter. I can't see any other explanation other than that it seems to be an excuse for continuing the same agenda as we had on Bill C-68, and that's simply harassing honest, law-abiding citizens.

Now I want to explain. The government already has control over the explosive part of bullets in shells, namely gun powder. They already have control over that. What possible public safety, anti-terrorism objective can be achieved by controlling the inexplosive part of these shells?

Let's not separate ourselves from the big debate on Parliament Hill right at the moment. There's a huge debate swirling around the present waste of $1 billion on a bureaucratic exercise to try to register all firearms. Now you have the tracking of inexplosive components.

How does this affect terrorists and their deadly operations? Why not spend scarce resources on CSIS and some of the other agencies that would give us some effective measures against the operations that these different criminal terrorist groups are engaged in? I see no real measurable benefit that'll be worth the expense of tracking all the inexplosive components.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was wondering how Mr. Breitkreuz would get a question in on gun control at this particular session, but he has managed to do it.

In any event, the question that you raise really does not fall under my purview as Solicitor General. It really falls under the purview of the Explosives Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I will say this. The reason inexplosive ammunition components such as cartridge cases and bullets are included for control under the Explosives Act, as I understand it, is that the Organization of American States, the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, from the OAS Convention, which Canada signed in November 1997, captures these components in its definition of ammunition. But that's basically all I can say on that particular issue, because it really falls under the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources. As you know, this bill covers quite a number of ministers.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The second part of my concern, really, is with what the privacy commissioner has raised. Now, I hope this is under your jurisdiction.

Mr. Wayne Easter: You can be sure this one is.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm not sure if you're aware of the concerns that I've raised in the House in this regard. The privacy commissioner has written a letter and he clearly expresses grave concerns about a provision that was in the previous Bill C-55, the Public Safety Act. It gives the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to personal information held by airlines. He goes on, and I don't have time to go through the whole explanation of his concerns.

Are you aware of that, sir, and could you maybe reply to the privacy commissioner on why you have done nothing to act on his concerns?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, I think, Mr. Chair, contrary to what the honourable member has said, we have done a fair bit in this act to address the concerns of the privacy commissioner. As I said in my opening remarks, we have noted his concerns. We believe the bill has been improved in order to find the balance.

If you turn to the bill itself, we lay out a pretty extensive regime regarding how this information can be used, how it has to be destroyed, who it is available to. If you turn to proposed subsection 4.82(7), we spell out the safeguards in that subsection, page 14 of the bill, in terms of the disclosure requirements. And then in proposed subsection 4.82(14), page 15 of the bill, we specifically state that the documents must be destroyed within seven days after it's provided:

unless it is reasonably required for the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of “threats to the security of Canada”

We've basically set out how the information can be collected, for what purpose it's collected, who can do it, and how long it can remain in the possession so as to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those people who are travelling on aircraft.

I don't know if the commissioner or the director wants to add something to that.

The Chair: If there's an additional brief comment to be made, please go ahead, and then I'll go to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Commissioner.

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Chair, I can only add that the legislation does not give us unrestricted access. That is totally incorrect. It is very limiting for us in terms of the serious information we need access to in order to ensure the safety of the travelling public and it is very restrictive in terms of what we can do with that information. The use of the word “unrestricted” is totally inappropriate.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, good morning. I have a question on your presentation here. On the first page, you say:

The RCMP needs to know if there are any potentially dangerous passengers on flights so they can assign Aircraft Protective Officers to cover them.

If we know they're potentially dangerous, why are we letting them on the plane in the first place?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Part of our purpose is to be able to match and find if there are potentially dangerous people getting on aircraft so that the... [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I hesitate to interrupt, but we are having technical difficulties. We will have to pause while repairs are made.

¿ (0920)

¿ (0924)

The Chair: Let's reconvene for the purpose of studying Bill C-17. I apologize for the delay.

The minister and his staff have been very cooperative, and we'll extend the meeting until 10:10 to accommodate the delay.

Mr. Mahoney, perhaps you would pick up your question again, please.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, my question refers to a statement that I'll read from your presentation. It says the “RCMP needs to know if there are any potentially dangerous passengers on flights so they can assign aircraft protective officers to cover them”. My question is, if we know they're potentially dangerous, why would we let them on the aircraft in the first place?

Mr. Wayne Easter Thank you. Not necessarily do we let them on the aircraft if we have that information, but I'll turn to Commissioner Zaccardelli or the director of CSIS to give you more of a detailed answer to that question.

Commissioner.

¿ (0930)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Chair, for example, if we have information that somebody is going to be taking a flight and there is a serious outstanding warrant for a serious offence, the objective is that once we have the information we would prevent that person from getting on the flight if we could arrest. In some cases we can arrest; in other situations we may not have the grounds to arrest but we would share that information with either CSIS or the airlines, or CSIS would share it with us so we can make a determination. The objective is to keep those people from getting on the flights. That's why we need this information and that's what this bill enables us to do in a better way. It gives us a tool to enable us to prevent those people that we don't want taking the flight from getting on the flight.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The concern of some civil libertarians and our privacy commissioner would revolve around the question of who watches the watch dog. We have had cases--in fact after September 11 there was a case that was reported publically and it was in the House of Commons.

I don't want to bring the man's name into it, because it's part of his past history and it has been resolved. It was at Chalk River AECL, where the RCMP and CSIS, to my understanding, conducted an interview and determined that this person was potentially dangerous, was a risk. He was not involved in transportation, but because the individual was of Arab descent and had a very similar, if not identical, name to one of the suspected terrorists.... This person went to lunch after the interview--he was not charged with anything--came back after lunch, and found his pass had been cancelled into the building. No one would talk to him, he lost his job, etc.

As it turned out, through proper channels with the Solicitor General and the RCMP, the situation was righted and the individual got his job back and his position restored with that particular firm. But that's the fear. With all due respect to the RCMP and CSIS, you guys can make mistakes, and when you make a mistake it can be catastrophic to an individual who is totally innocent and not involved in something.

When you're gathering this data, I'd like you to give this committee some assurance that someone's monitoring this, that your designated officers are appropriately designated, how that happens, and that hopefully you're not going to make the kind of mistake that can destroy someone's life quite unintentionally.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think we try to spell out a number of safeguards in the legislation. We want to be assured that doesn't happen either. You can't absolutely be 100% sure. But I think we outline in one of the appendices in the act some of the information that could be required, and if you have more than a name, if you have your date of birth, your potential for that kind of problem is certainly lessened. But I would assure the member that there are quite a number of areas spelled out where there is accountability. There is the SIRC, which reviews the CSIS information. There's the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, which reviews the RCMP information. There's certainly the privacy commissioner himself, who also has access to this information.

Mr. Chair, we certainly hope to avoid putting individuals in that kind of difficult position. But I think you also would recognize that the legislation is in place to protect the safety of Canadians and to do what we can to prevent terrorists and others from flying on the airlines so that they can be apprehended and prevented before they do further danger to society.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the minister for his presentation and to assure him that we will do our duties as members of Parliament to avoid abuses. That's what I want to focus on, especially on proposed sections 4.18 and 4.82.

In proposed section 4.81, I saw that the Department of Transport could ask its officials to get information on lists of reservations and so on. Under proposed section 4.82, the RCMP and CSIS can do the same, and under both sections, they may disclose potentially useful information to other people who work for the same organizations.

Here is my first question. Is there any coordination among those collecting the information? In other words, if the Department of Transport collects information, do the RCMP and CSIS know?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Director, do you want to take that question?

Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Mr. Chairman, there will of course be coordination between us, Transport, and the RCMP. We're all interested in more or less the same information, so we will have to be sure that in working out arrangements with airlines, etc., we're not duplicating what we're doing.

Once we take the information, once each of us gets the information, we will, in some respects, be using it in slightly differently ways. The way in which we would sort the information would probably be different from the RCMP's. But essentially in terms of getting the information, we will obviously have to coordinate between ourselves and the airlines.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to know whether, when you identify someone and contact the carrier to ask, for example, for the airplane passenger list... I'm quite a sociable person, and I could be sitting on the plane next to a terrorist and strike up a conversation. Can you get information on the passengers around him too? If I'm sitting beside a terrorist, and we're having a good time and drinking champagne together, are you going to tell me you've got information on me? If you don't tell me, how am I going to make sure that the information on me is destroyed within seven days?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: That's not how it works.

The information on you is, you're a good, law-abiding citizen, drinking champagne in a plane. The information from the airline that is being requested, as it's spelled out in the bill, will be matched against names and other criteria as spelled out to indicate to CSIS and the RCMP, designated officers in both cases, that there's a match here so that the proper precautions can be taken on that specific individual in your case who happens to be sitting beside you. If there's information, as the commissioner said a moment ago, that there's an outstanding warrant for a serious criminal offence, then it would be hoped that you wouldn't have to sit beside that individual on a plane because he could be apprehended.

The protective measures are there for you as a Canadian citizen, we believe, so that the information would not be misused but only used for the specific purposes as outlined in the act.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have time left to ask a question.

Mr. Claude Bachand: When an individual is identified as a terrorist or potential terrorist, I think the RCMP, the Department of Transport and CSIS will be tempted to check that there aren't some accomplices on the plane. They may then request the complete passenger list to look for matches. Is it at all possible that someone could say that this passenger has been convicted of something or other and could be an accomplice of another passenger?

The individual or individuals under investigation on the plane because of the presence of a terrorist don't know they're under investigation, from what I have read in the act. If they have no way of knowing that information on them is being collected, how can they make sure that information is destroyed within seven days? That's what I want to know.

¿ (0940)

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's really not the people who were on the plane who have nothing to worry about in terms of their past history or whatever who would be looked at in terms of how the matching works in this particular interest. I think you make the point in terms of really the need for this kind of legislation to protect the interests of Canadians, because if there are those individuals who you've indicated might be on the plane, whom you might be sitting beside, then this bill becomes all the more important.

I know the commissioner wanted to add a further point there to your initial question.

Commissioner.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

I think the point is that if you are a person who has not committed any crime or is not involved in any illegal activity and you're drinking champagne on the plane, you won't come to the attention of CSIS or the RCMP. That's exactly how the system works. Your name will not surface. What we want to do is prevent people from getting on who shouldn't be getting on, and if we know about somebody who might be on, that's the person we will target.

So the system is geared specifically to surface and identify those people who are serious criminals and may be involved in serious terrorist activity. The system will not surface your name because you are an innocent person.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, I have to commend you for your fast transformation from Fisheries to Solicitor General. I think we all agree you're doing a fantastic job.

I have three questions, Mr. Minister. First, George Bush claims one week the war in Iraq is war against terrorism, and the other week it's a war against weapons of mass destruction. Can you define in your way, in your department, if it's a war against terrorism, and what are we doing about that war in Iraq, or potential war?

Second, the U.S. last September, in mid-September, introduced new regulations to fingerprint foreigners, in their mind. That includes hundreds of thousands of Canadians born in five countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Sudan, I believe. I had a meeting with the U.S. ambassador in my office and I complained to him that their policy is discriminatory against Canadians. He agreed with me basically that the policy is wrong. It was also pointed out, about which I agree with him, that in the first week they had 400 or 500 fingerprints, and toward the end there were only a few dozen. They were trying to reduce the activities.

Do we share the fingerprints of their criminals when they cross the border to Canada? If we do, that's fine. If we don't, why not? To give you an example, a couple of months ago they had two famous snipers. I wonder if these guys ever came to Canada would we have fingerprints at the border to stop them. That's one example.

The final point, the second point on this issue, is do we share this information with G-7 countries? Most terrorism taking place against the west would be in the G-7 category. Do we share that information, on fingerprints and what have you, with the general security services of the G-7?

My final question, Mr. Minister, relates to something you mentioned, that the records for a passenger are kept for seven days and after seven days it's destroyed. If it's not destroyed within seven days and a court case proceeds against this individual, would that document be a legal document in the court because the law says it had to be destroyed but it was not destroyed? Would you bring that as a legal document in the court case?

I have three questions for you.

Mr. Wayne Easter: You haven't changed much since the fisheries committee, Sarkis, you actually have four.

The Chair: But you only have five minutes.

Mr. Wayne Easter:And not all of them are in my area of responsibility. He tried that at fisheries too, Mr. Chair.

But thank you for the questions. In terms of the first one relating to President Bush, I think it's really more in the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In any event, regardless of what statements the President may or may not make, Canada, as the Prime Minister has indicated, will be doing much of its discussions through the United Nations, and we'll make our decisions as a nation accordingly.

On the fingerprinting, I'll turn that one over to the commissioner in a moment.

On the records, the seven days, there are specific purposes for which we can keep that information longer than seven days, and those conditions are spelled out in the bill, how that may be done. So they can in fact be retained if there's reason to believe.... They can be kept for a longer period under specific conditions.

I'll turn your fingerprinting question over to the commissioner.

¿ (0945)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Just on the last point, if I may, Mr. Minister, obviously if the information that we retain is required for court purposes, it will be used; otherwise it is destroyed unless there are grounds to retain it. That would be the rule.

In terms of the fingerprints, obviously when somebody crosses the border into Canada, that is the responsibility of Immigration, which would be looking after them and making a determination of whether that person should be allowed into the country, and so on. In certain circumstances, the Department of Immigration will ask the assistance of the RCMP to take fingerprints, and so on. So we help them in that sense.

It depends on the situation and what that person is being held for. That person may be arrested if they're wanted in the United States, if there's an extradiction request, and so on. So it depends on the circumstances in terms of whether or not Canada or a Canadian agency takes fingerprints from them.

You talked about sharing of fingerprints and so on with the G-7 countries in particular. Everything is done on a case-by-case basis. There has to be a specific request, supported by court documents, before we would share information with another country. In certain cases, we will get fingerprints from other countries if we need them, because you have to remember there are two ways of making a positive identification: fingerprints and DNA. Unless you have fingerprints, you can't be absolutely certain that the individual you have is the person we're dealing with.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Assadourian. I regret that your time has lapsed.

Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, I neglected to answer one part of Mr. Assadourian's question--

The Chair: I regret, Mr. Minister, but I think maybe it was a little bit of a fishing expedition.

Maybe there could be shorter preambles to the questions, but we're going to follow the timeframes that we have. Maybe a colleague of his would want to pick that question up at a later time.

Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On some of the items you have here, I would hope the RCMP and CSIS already know. They've had enough time; they should already know who could possibly be a threat to our airline industry.

In one of the parts of your report, you talk about 2000 and you talk about worldwide. I would hope that CSIS and the RCMP right now do have a combined list of who they feel in Canada may be a threat to us, rather than waiting to see what happens.

I don't see any figures here from 2001. There's 1999 here; it says there were no incidents. In 2000 alone, there were 16 in-flight incidents, 24 attacks on the ground, and 33 hijackings recorded--that's worldwide.

What about Canada? What are the numbers in Canada that should be disturbing to us as a country, and what have the RCMP and CSIS done about it?

One of the other things that I think we should remind ourselves about is the incident we've just had with regard to a Canadian citizen from Quebec who went to get gasoline through the border. He's being charged with a very serious offence of carrying a weapon. That's a major problem in this country. That's a criminal offence, when you look at the law. As a result of it, this gentleman from Quebec is classified, I would say, just from your perspective, that he could be a high-risk person, because he's going to be charged with a violation, possibly. That should not be the case.

I'm just wondering about the number of instances in Canada. I would hope that the resources would be put on a list together rather than their putting a list on everyone, because right now the travelling public doesn't have trust in the law-abiding agencies that the right things are being done. It is very important that this panel, the minister, and CSIS will look at this again to see what's happening.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll ask the director of CSIS to comment in a moment, but there is certainly information in the database. That's why, when you get into the legislation, you'll see why the passenger information is important. You want it to match up with information that may be from either criminal or security intelligence information that would match that name and other information, so that proper procedures can be taken under the authority of the RCMP or under CSIS. That information is in the database.

On your specific question, in 2000--we don't have the 2001 information, as I understand it, as yet--there were 16 in-flight instances, 24 attacks on aircraft on the ground, and 33 hijackings were recorded worldwide, compared to no instance in 1999.

Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Rex Barnes: What about Canada?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, as the minister said, we will in fact be running the passenger names against a specific database of people of concern to us, targets of ours, in other words people who meet the test of the CSIS Act in respect of the possibility of involvement in terrorism. So it will be run against a specific list rather than something incoherent.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Mr. Chair, in this country, it's a common thing for people to do what this gentleman from Quebec did, and I don't think this gentleman is a risk to the security of this country. I'm saying to you, if this gentleman is put on the list of probable security threats to this country, I think that you've failed Canadians already.

It is incumbent on the RCMP and CSIS to have a defined list of people who are a real threat to this country. If you don't know that by now, I think you've failed in your job and you should start doing that job right now. I don't think you have done that. It doesn't appear to be. I think it's incumbent to have trust within this country that something is done and that we put the resources into something that's going to pay off in the long haul.

Of course, the privacy commissioner has major concerns all the way through. I don't know what you fellows are really doing or what you're not doing, because I don't see any evidence from my perspective as a member of the travelling public that things are being done in the right direction.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I don't know if others want to comment on this, but that particular case is before the courts. We certainly operate on the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty. That's one of the standards in this country.

That's all I can say on that. Perhaps others have something.

Commissioner.

The Chair: If someone wants to comment, I'll take it, otherwise I'll have to move to Ms. Phinney.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'll just make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

The individual the honourable member mentioned certainly wouldn't fit any definition of a threat to national security for our purposes, so he certainly wouldn't be on any of our lists.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm concerned about people having enough money to do the job. Who is checking at the end of seven days to make sure those names that should come off are coming off where the retention is not justified? Is it the same group of people who can be designated to get this information in the first place? How many people would you need to do that? Do you have a specific team set up that is going to do nothing else but take those people off?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Go ahead, Director.

Mr. Ward Elcock: The way we're going to run the list, Mr. Chairman, is that the names will automatically drop off the list unless we make a decision to keep them. It is simply a computer decision to drop them off after seven days.

Ms. Beth Phinney: They're not going on CPIC. This is a separate list altogether.

Mr. Ward Elcock: No. CPIC is an RCMP computer system, not a police system, not a CSIS system.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Are those names not going to go on CPIC?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Yes, and as--

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, they are not?

¿ (0955)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, they are not going on CPIC. They automatically drop off. We have a system in place to make sure of that, and there's verification of it, so absolutely, they do not go on CPIC.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think the other information that should be noted as well is that, I believe annually, the director of CSIS and the commissioner of the RCMP also have to review that to make sure the proper procedures have been followed and indeed the information has been destroyed.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I want assurance again: these names that you come up with of people flying on planes are not going on the CPIC list at any time?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No. They are matched against that. They are checked against the list, and if there are no hits, then they are automatically destroyed. If there's a retention of any name, it has to be recorded why that retention has taken place, and so on.

Ms. Beth Phinney: But they would never go on the list.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, they don't go on CPIC.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

In terms of these people who you designate to do this research, etc., it says in proposed section 4.82 that they have to prepare and keep records of everything they did, why they did it, etc. Now, is this keeping the records the seven days, or is this keeping the records so that they have it to prove to their superior at some point six months later that they did do this job, which is another list being kept, which is not being destroyed in seven days?

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's not information on the names that have been destroyed. It's information on the ones that have been retained for specific purposes under the criteria.

Commissioner, do you want to add further?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: For example, if somebody is found and we have a hit, and the person is wanted for murder, for example, obviously once we make that match we will then do the necessary inquiries to follow up and have that person arrested, and so on. That information will be retained as long as it's required, and that will be recorded, but just that individual. The rest of the names that were on that flight will have automatically been eliminated, and we will keep that record as required. That's the only record we keep. Then that's audited.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Does that individual keep the records in his desk, or is it in a file? It just says in here that they have to keep the information.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes. We have a system to manage that information. These are very specifically designated, full-time employees, who do only this.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: We have a little bit of time left.

[Translation]

Mr. Bertrand, if you have a short question, within Ms. Phinney's five minutes, I will allow it, but there are only a few minutes left.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I have a question about air carriers. When foreign carriers enter Canadian air space will they be subject to the same requirements as Canadian carriers?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, it is.

I want to come back to Ms. Phinney's question. As well, all this information also is available to the privacy commissioner. It can be reviewed at any time. So that's a protection as well.

But the specific answer to your question, Mr. Bertrand, is yes.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you.

Thank you all for appearing. It's always a pleasure to have those who are left in charge of our national security tell us what they're doing to make us feel so much better.

First off, a comment was made that CSIS targets only people who have committed crimes.

I'm going to give you a number of questions here. I'm not going to pretend there's only one. I'll try to give them to you quickly so I have time for your response.

There was the statement that CSIS targets only people who have committed crimes. My question is, has CSIS ever targeted anybody who has never committed a crime, and how do they find people who commit the crimes if they've never committed a crime before?

Next question is, what are the absolute criteria for deciding who gets retained on the list? Do you share the list that you retain with other agencies, and are they then liable to the same seven-day retention period if there is nothing there? Do they have to destroy it? Can they do whatever with it?

It was indicated that you only keep it if you have a name match, and this refers again to the criteria. I'm curious, and as you were talking I was reminded of that show, Get Smart, and the dome of silence, the shoe phone, and KAOS, and the whole bit, because as I was listening to you say we're only going to get people for whom there's a name match, I was thinking, what criminal in their right mind is going to board a plane and use their same name? I'm not a criminal and I think I have that figured out pretty quickly.

So I'm curious about how your name match is going to work, and since this bill deals with transportation security, I'm curious about what you're doing with rail passenger lists, bus passenger lists, and cruise boat lists. So go for it.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Mr. Wayne Easter: There's quite a list of questions there, Mr. Chair, so I'll ask some others to come here as well. There is a piece of information we intended to hand out, but we didn't, that basically outlines the procedure if there's a match, if there's no match, and how that is handled. So I'll hand it out to the committee for their information.

I'll have Mr. Elcock answer some of the questions specifically to CSIS. But intelligence work is that--you go out there and you try to prevent activities from happening. You're going to certainly target terrorist individuals and others involved in crime, but that's part of the job. It's part of trying to protect the country and Canadians.

With regard to changing your name, you do need identification to get on an aircraft. It's one of the requirements to get on. Certainly there are some out there with other identities. In some cases our security services know those other identities. So you try to operate with the information that's available and hopefully in terms of the bad guys, we'll call them, you come up with a match and you protect our interests as a country.

With that, I'll turn to Ward.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, we don't inherently target people who have criminal records. We target anybody who would meet the tests of the CSIS Act. In the case of this particular piece of legislation, the primary interest for us is obviously those engaged in activities under paragraph 2(c) of our legislation, essentially people involved in terrorist activities. They may or may not have committed any criminal act. That has really nothing to do with it. The question is simply whether they have met the test of our act.

As the minister said, in terms of individuals who may have aliases or other identities, one of the things we do try to find out is whether people of concern to us do have other identities. And obviously if we're running people's names against a list, it would include their name and any other identities they might have.

In terms of sharing the information, the lists themselves would not be shared. I think that's clear from the legislation. But in some cases, where there is justification for retaining the information, then it's conceivable that information might be shared with others. But that would depend on a decision to in fact retain the information under the legislation.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just--

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais, I regret...unless it was a very short question.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Since CSIS is here it will be very short. I'm just curious. There was a suggestion in a book that CSIS was targeting people who worked for the postal union. I'm wondering whether or not that was accurate.

Mr. Ward Elcock: No, it wasn't accurate.

The Chair: A response. So there we go.

Now, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm worried that a lot of this legislation will lead to racial profiling. I think that when we're dealing with people in a country such as Canada it's something we have to guard against.

But I also worry when I'm given a set of numbers that are used to justify something that happened after the numbers were published. I wonder why you would use those numbers. In the opening statement, you talk about over the last two years and then you talk about no incidents in 1999. I think what this committee would want to know is what are the statistics since 9/11 for incidents that have happened on aircraft. You're using this as justification, but you're not giving us what has happened after 9/11. You're giving us 1999. In 2000 alone you're talking about.... But what has happened since 9/11? What are the statistics that have happened after that?

And I would like some comments on racial profiling and how it would lead to that.

Mr. Wayne Easter: In terms of the statistics, hopefully before time runs out we'll see what we can find you. I did give you the figure for 2000, and if we don't have that information with us, I'll get back to the chair with that information and a specific answer.

In terms of the racial profiling, we don't do racial profiling in Canada, and other ministers have certainly spoken out against that. I think we're very proud, as Canadians, to be in a multicultural society, and it's just not in the cards from our perspective. There's no intent whatsoever, through this legislation or any other means that I'm aware of within the Government of Canada, to do racial profiling.

À (1005)

Mr. John O'Reilly: I find that when you go through the airport the opposite is true, that airport people presently now are targeting people of Arab descent, Muslims, anyone who would not look like a white Anglo-Saxon. And that's proven even by our own members of Parliament such as Jean Augustine and so forth, and they have complained about it to the airlines.

So my big worry is that this is another infringement on Canadians' rights and freedoms that's not necessary. Some of it is certainly necessary to ensure the safety on aircraft, and I wonder, is that why you--not you individually--left out the statistics that we need? Those are the statistics we're looking for as a committee, and yet they're purposely left out and we use old statistics to justify new legislation.

So I think it's very important to this committee that they understand just exactly what it is you're trying to do here, because I would maintain that I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this will create more racial profiling. And if you don't think it exists now, you should walk through the airport with someone of dark skin and see who gets picked out to be searched. It happens.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I want to be clear, Mr. Chair, that we did not purposely leave out any statistics. If we haven't presented them as yet in terms of the statistics you need, as I indicated, we will get them.

This legislation certainly is there for the health and safety of Canadians, and the protection of national security, and I don't want the member's question, which was leading to saying that this legislation could lead to racial profiling, to go unchallenged. It cannot. There's nothing in this legislation that would lead us to that conclusion. It spells out the specific reasons it's there for and what proposed section 4.82 can be used for.

As a last point on racial profiling, under the RCMP policy--and certainly the commissioner can speak better on this than I--all officers are bound to follow the law, including the charter, the Privacy Act, and the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the RCMP itself has issued policy statements against racial profiling and other abusive practices. Beyond that, I understand your concern, and all I can say is that if it is happening, it shouldn't be happening, and it should be addressed if it is.

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the minister, and to the commissioners and the directors, for coming to committee today.

I think it's Dickens, in one of his books, who said, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. I think this legislation has some very positive parts in it, and I think it has some that even government members have some concerns and hesitancy about.

I see parts of this bill as giving the RCMP and our security team the ability to safeguard Canadians, and I think some of the listing, indeed, would prevent racial profiling by having that name come up where they aren't profiled because of skin colour or because of something else. So it may, in effect, deter what the concerns are. But there are parts of the bill that are of huge concern. I go into certain stores and shops in my constituency and they have postings up warning about parts of this bill.

More specifically, I'm referring to the part adding the definition of “inexplosive ammunition components”. This means that empty shell cases, shotgun hulls, or any projectile can be subject to regulation under the Explosives Act. Our concern again is that individuals who are importing or bringing these shell casings from the United States all of a sudden are more apt to be harassed, in some cases with even potential legal charges coming forward.

I have another question, but could you just assure us again, Mr. Solicitor General, that this is not the case, because I know Canadians, especially hunters, are very concerned about that aspect of this bill.

À (1010)

Mr. Wayne Easter: I previously answered the question to Mr. Sorenson's colleague. As I indicated then, that really falls under the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources and is included under control of the Explosives Act. Any more than that, it's not my authority to get into that point, other than to suggest that I would believe there are some in the country who are blowing that particular issue out of proportion.

As a result--and you yourself said it, and I congratulate you for saying it--this bill does give us, through the RCMP and CSIS, the ability to safeguard Canadians. That is what this bill is all about.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Well, certainly, to the Solicitor General, it's another one of those bills where, when we're talking about air safety, certainly Canadians are very cautious, and I think, all together, they want to see security of our airline industry; however, parts of the bill that are targeting legitimate, responsible firearms owners are quite opposite. In the appendix to the Auditor General's report, she refers to the FIP list, the firearms interest police database, and thousands of names shouldn't be on that list.

To follow up, our concern is that for these individuals--and I think the government has brought this out as well--we want the satisfaction of knowing that names are not going to stay on lists when they shouldn't be on the lists.

But to the commissioner of the RCMP, obviously in the last day or two there has been the news of the firearms registry and the cost overruns of $1 billion. I know as you've come before justice committees in the past, you have brought out the fact that the RCMP is always prioritizing and always having to weigh the risks. I think you've called it “risk assessment”. At one committee meeting, you said they've had to put certain files on the back burner dealing with organized crime because of the terrorist legislation coming out.

But in recognition that today it has hit the media and Parliament that the firearms registry has cost $1 billion, or will soon cost $1 billion, my question to you is, would this money have been better used for the security of Canadians if given to CSIS or to the RCMP?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just before the commissioner comes in to answer some of the specific aspects of the question, Mr. Chair, we're not here to talk about the Firearms Act. I think the member knows that. We're here to talk about the safety and security of Canadians and protection against international terrorist activities. That's what this bill is all about, and that's what we're here to discuss.

But on the specifics, what can be answered, the commissioner is certainly more than willing to answer.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But my question is, wouldn't the resources be better spent...?

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, your question has been put on the floor. I think the minister has been somewhat diplomatic. We are studying Bill C-17, notwithstanding other timely, very priority issues that might be before Parliament. But today we're dealing with the legislation, Bill C-17.

If the commissioner has anything to add that pertains to Bill C-17, I will entertain it, otherwise we will move on.

Mr. Commissioner.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Well, not relative to Bill C-17, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We will conclude, then, and thank the minister, the officials, and everyone for being at today's meeting. It's a little early, but I wish you the very best of the holiday season.

The meeting is adjourned.