Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, February 12, 2007
The Standing Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 10:10 a.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to order.
My name is Colin Kenny. I am a senator from Ontario and I chair the committee.
Before we begin, I should like to introduce the members of committee. To my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Ontario, deputy chair of the committee, Senator Michael Meighen. He is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario. He is the chancellor of the University of King's College and the past chair of the Stratford Festival. Currently, he is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Beside him is Senator Wilfred Moore from Halifax. Senator Moore is a lawyer with an extensive record of community involvement. He has served for 10 years on the board of governors of St. Mary's University. He also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
On my immediate right is Senator Norman Atkins. Senator Atkins is from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. Senator Atkins served as a senior adviser to former federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, to Premier William Davis of Ontario and to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Beside him is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. Senator Banks was called to the Senate following a 50-year career in the entertainment industry. He is the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
At the end of the table is Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick. Senator Day is the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. He is a member of the bars of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and a fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. He is also a former president and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association.
Honourable senators, we have before us today Mr. Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada.
The subject of the panel is twofold — that is, the marine transportation security clearance program and the passenger protect program.
Marc Grégoire is an airline pilot by trade. He has been with Transport Canada since 1983. In December 2003, he was appointed assistant deputy minister of safety and security. Mr. Grégoire last testified before the committee on October 2, 2006, and we welcome you back here today, sir.
Mr. Grégoire is accompanied by two officials from Transport Canada: Mr. Brion Brandt, Director of Security Policy, and Ms. Laureen Kinney, Director General of Maritime Security.
Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Thank you, as you mentioned I am here to address the committee's expressed interest in learning more about passenger protect as well as to provide an update on the marine transportation security clearance program.
[Translation]
I am joined today by Brion Brandt and Laureen Kinney.
As you are aware, terrorist groups have targeted civil aviation for decades. As a result, countries around the world have enhanced security and Canada has been a leader. We have pioneered such initiatives as passenger-baggage match, and advanced explosives detection techniques. One recent initiative, regarded with interest by other countries, is to provide non-passengers with secure ID, in the form of a Restricted Area Identity Card that contains biometric identifiers and is backed up by a rigorous security clearance process. We discussed this very subject when we testified last October.
[English]
The diversity of initiatives to secure civil aviation reflects an approach that stands the best chance of success — that is, layered security. Each layer adds something useful to make the whole better than the parts. Together, the security layers have contributed to a situation where security is adapting and improving and public confidence and civil aviation passenger numbers are growing once again.
Passenger protect responds to a recent trend, confirmed by current intelligence, that is, efforts by terrorist groups to place operatives onboard aircraft for the purpose of bringing the aircraft down, or using it as a weapon. In 2004, terrorists in Russia, who boarded two aircraft, caused the aircraft to crash, killing 89. In 2006, British authorities disrupted an alleged plot to use passengers to bring down multiple aircraft using improvised explosives devices.
[Translation]
Passenger Protect, like many other aviation security programs, requires a partnership between government agencies and air carriers. Transport Canada, using information from the RCMP and CSIS, will provide air carriers with a list of individuals who, if they attempt to board a flight, may pose a threat to the flight. The list will be dynamic. Each name must be re-assessed every thirty days. Names can be added on an urgent basis in response to a specific threat situation. Many countries and even private companies use watch lists because they work.
[English]
One unfortunate result of the terrorist use of passengers to carry out attacks is the mistrust created between passengers, resulting in several incidents where individuals were asked to leave an aircraft on suspicion that they posed a threat. The proposed program will offer passengers on flights to and from Canada, and within Canada, additional assurance that fellow passengers do not represent a threat.
The challenges that face the passenger protect program mirror those that face other watch list programs. The people that pose a threat may try to travel under an assumed identity to avoid detection. We must remember that the individuals we are discussing are few and far between. Creating false identity and evasion from detection require effort. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies may be able to defeat their efforts at evasion, and these detection efforts can result in stopping the individual from boarding an aircraft. We should also remember that the perpetrators of 9/11, and the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, travelled using their own identities.
Passenger protect faces other challenges as well, particularly that of avoiding mistakes. Transport Canada has worked over the past two years with the aviation industry, civil liberties groups and community organizations to design a system that reduces the likelihood of a mistake being made. The key here is to have a list clearly focused on aviation security, and therefore limited in size and scope, and a system that permits the rapid resolution of cases where your name is similar to the name of someone on the list, by letting you provide additional data points, from date of birth to home address and passport number, to clear matters up.
[Translation]
If, despite these design features, a mistake occurs, Transport Canada is establishing an Office of Reconsideration, staffed by individuals who have had no previous role in creating the watch list and supported by independent experts, so that an individual can provide additional information to challenge the decision.
The Minister of Transport will consider advice from the Office of Reconsideration. The reconsideration process offers a low cost and quick approach to challenging a decision to deny boarding, based on the list.
[English]
In moving forward with passenger protect, we are making use of the provisions of the Public Safety Act, approved by Parliament after considerable debate. The proposed program also contributes to the objectives of the security and prosperity partnership, objectives endorsed by Canada, the United States and Mexico to develop equivalent approaches to aviation security, including the matter of passenger assessment or no-fly programs.
Passenger protect would enable us to use Canadian standards and judgments and scrupulously respect Canadian laws, including the Privacy Act, while engaging our partners in dialogue and the development of separate, but comparable, programs to improve aviation security.
September 11, 2001, changed the marine transportation environment as well, creating the challenge of continuing to ensure the free movement of commerce while addressing the role of nations in developing and enhancing security at all levels. Since 9/11, over $930 million has been committed specifically to enhancing marine security in Canada, with key elements such as the marine security contribution program, which recognized the potential economic impact that the new security requirements are having on the marine industry.
[Translation]
The Marine Transportation Security Clearance Program places Canada again amongst international leaders in marine security. At least two other countries have a marine program under formal development. Australia implemented requirements for workers to carry a Maritime Security Identification Card as of January 1, 2007, and the United States has recently published its final Rules and is expected to implement the first phase of its Transportation Workers Identification Card for marine workers by the fall of 2008.
[English]
Canada's program requires security clearances for those workers whose duties are integral to the security of the marine transportation system. This means that individuals who work in special restricted areas, such as those at cruise terminals, and other persons who perform certain designated duties, as well as licensed ships' pilots, harbour masters or wharfingers, Canadian seafarers, those with security responsibilities or who have access to cruise ships at specified ports will need a security clearance.
[Translation]
The key element of the program is the decision to grant or deny a security clearance. The Minister may grant a security clearance if the information provided is verifiable, reliable and is sufficient for the Minister to determine to what extent the applicant poses a risk to the security of marine transportation. As with the Passenger Protect program, an applicant may request a reconsideration of the minister's decision, through a similar independent manner using the newly established Office of Reconsideration.
[English]
A risk-based approach was used to select specific ports for this program, due to their high volumes of passengers and/or cargo traffic or of strategic importance.
The first phase of security clearance requirements comes into effect on December 15, 2007, at Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, Fraser River and North Fraser River, and control centres of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. This is followed by the second phase, one year later, at Prince Rupert, Victoria, Windsor, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec, Saint John, and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
As the impact of these additional requirements on our major cruise and container terminals will be significant, the phased-in approach provides reasonable time for port and facility operators to develop operational implementation plans.
I am pleased to report that security clearances have already been processed and approved at the ports of Halifax and Vancouver and that Montreal is working closely with Transport Canada to get equipment and processes in place.
[English]
Developing appropriate security programs is always complex and often controversial. We must develop programs that enhance security while respecting privacy and efficiency. The three of us look forward to your questions.
Senator Moore: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I should like to ask a question related to the port security side of the presentation this morning.
I assume there must be some consistency between the approaches to security within ports, whether they are airports or seaports. I expect there would be, but perhaps you can confirm that. Is that how we are headed? I know there are different facilities in those types of ports, airport or seaport, but do we have a consistent plan or approach with regard to the security demands and the implementation of the programs?
Mr. Grégoire: There is no doubt there are similarities. In fact, the idea of implementing such a program in the ports came from the program we have in the airports. However, there are differences. Those differences may disappear or be reduced over time, but as the program starts, there will be differences.
Perhaps the most significant one is that, in airports, all workers going into restricted areas go through a background check. This will not be the case for the ports, probably because of the geography and the complexity of ports. Selected people will have to go through the security clearance process. However, the information being gathered on airports or on ports will be the same; and in developing the program for ports, we have made some minor changes to the airport program.
Senator Moore: In your remarks, Mr. Grégoire, toward the end, you said you were pleased to report that security clearances have already been processed and approved at Halifax and Montreal, and that Vancouver is working closely with Transport Canada to get equipment and processes in place. How many people in the ports of Halifax and Montreal have been processed and had their security clearances approved?
Mr. Grégoire: Let me remind you that we are just starting the process now. We expect to have to go through thousands of workers at those ports. As of January 31, only 27 people had applied for a clearance in Halifax and 17 clearances had been granted.
In Vancouver, three people had applied and two had been granted. Montreal has not started, so I think there is a mistake in the French version of the speech.
Senator Moore: The English version.
Mr. Grégoire: Or the English version, or both.
Senator Moore: So you are in the process. This says they have been processed and approved. You mentioned they have applied. How is the process initiated? Is there a requirement by the employer for them to apply? Is there a legal requirement whereby they must apply, or is it a volunteer process?
Mr. Grégoire: It depends on the job position. For example, anyone working on a cruise ship needs to have security clearance. Marine pilots, sailors wanting their sailor's card, workers in secured areas of ports or decision makers at container terminals all have to apply for security clearance, which is designated through the security plans of the various facilities.
Senator Moore: Who advises people of the requirement? Do local port authorities look after that, or do they act under the direction of Transport Canada?
Mr. Grégoire: It is both. The port authority looks after that in consultation with the workers and Transport Canada. They have to obey their security plan.
Senator Moore: This is consistent with an overall plan that Transport Canada has implemented.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Moore: There will be a consistent standard across the country with regard to seaports.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. Transport Canada has developed the methodology in consultation with the three main port facilities. That being said, we accept volunteer applications so that more people than the minimum required will have their security clearance. We have until December 15, 2007, to enrol the people who are required currently to have security clearance.
Senator Moore: Do you have ample time to do this?
Mr. Grégoire: Theoretically, yes, we have enough time.
The Chairman: All workers at airports are required to carry a valid pass.
Mr. Grégoire: That is correct.
The Chairman: However, at seaports, some people will not be required to have passes.
Mr. Grégoire: That is correct.
Senator Moore: Who are not required to have passes?
Mr. Grégoire: Workers at grain elevators, for example, or in other areas of the port that do not represent a risk will not need a security clearance. There are numerous people who do not require passes provided they remain in such areas.
The Chairman: Does the pass have the capacity of telling you when someone leaves the grain terminal?
Mr. Grégoire: No. We do not have dual fencing, if that is your reference. Port premises are quite different than those of the airport. At most airports, there is a fence around the perimeter, making it is easy to delimit. The Port of Montreal, however, spreads for 40 kilometres on both sides of the St. Lawrence River. Each seaport facility has its own fence and access control.
The Chairman: Is that control on the water side as well?
Mr. Grégoire: On the water side. There is only water.
The Chairman: I asked whether they had a fence.
Mr. Grégoire: There is no fence on the water side, yet, to my knowledge.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Meighen: Senator Moore's questions raise many more questions. For clarification, the top of the last page of your remarks talks about Canada's program requiring security clearances for certain workers. There is then a paragraph that begins as follows: ``As the impact of these additional requirements on our major cruise and container terminals will be significant. . . .''
From whose perspective will these requirements be significant? Is it the passengers' or the cruise operators' perspective? I am not minimizing the work involved, but it does involve getting security clearances for the workers in sensitive areas. By your own testimony, you are well advanced in that area. What is the major impact on the cruise industry?
Mr. Grégoire: There will be impact on port and cruise ship operators because it used to be that they were able to move longshoremen from one area of the port to another area depending on where workers were needed. Today, the operators have to ensure that those longshoremen have the proper security clearance to work in another area, for example, the cruise ship terminal. The operational impact is caused by the change in the way that cruise ship operators do business. They used to have a great deal of flexibility when they needed to hire workers, at times hiring people at the last minute right off the street. That will no longer be possible because the workers will be required to have their security clearance.
Senator Meighen: Has that been discussed with the unions? Have they offered their cooperation?
Mr. Grégoire: The issue has been discussed at length since 2003 when it was first announced. We have held many public consultations across the country, including many with the labour union representatives and the BC Maritime Employers Association, BCMEA, in Vancouver. There has been extensive discussion.
Senator Meighen: What has their reaction been at the end of these lengthy consultations?
Mr. Grégoire: The reaction has been that people can live with the product, so the minister decided to proceed and the regulation was put in place just before Christmas.
Senator Moore: I want to clarify something that arose from the chairman's question. In your example, Mr. Grégoire, a person working in the grain elevator section, let us say in the Port of Halifax, should not be in the container of the cruise ship area. Is that right? He does not need a pass to work in the grain elevator but he needs a pass to work in the cruise ship area. Is that right?
Mr. Grégoire: First, since July 2004, we have requested that port authorities provide passes for workers.
Senator Moore: Does that apply to all areas of the port, such as grain elevator and container cruise ship?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. Such a pass does not require a background check. Under the new system, as of December 2007, anyone going from one specific area to another will require a pass that contains a logo or something to indicate their security clearance. People will have to be security cleared to move from one area to another. It will be feasible for someone working at a grain elevator to move to the cruise ship terminal to work, provided they have the appropriate security clearance prior to doing so, and that endorsement will be provided by the port authority.
Senator Moore: Which areas of all seaports require workers to have security clearance?
Mr. Grégoire: First, specific areas require security clearance. Those areas are defined as R2s — restricted area two — in the regulation.
Senator Moore: What are R2 areas?
Mr. Grégoire: R2s are restricted areas designated by the facility operator that require transportation security clearance in order to access. They will become part of the security plan of the port. All facility operators are working on maps of the R2s and trying to determine how they will control access to those R2s. For instance, all cruise ship terminals will be R2s for all designated ports on the list that I mentioned earlier.
Second, specific duties and job positions are designated as ``security clearance required.'' Two of those are security agent and controller or decision-maker in container ship terminals. A number of positions are defined as such — and perhaps Ms. Kinney could cite those from the regulation. Those are the two ways to obtain a security clearance.
Senator Moore: I want to follow the example of someone working in a grain elevator. That person does not need to have a background check.
Mr. Grégoire: That is correct.
Senator Moore: However, that person is now within the port precinct and can walk down to the container and to the cruise ship area. What is to prevent that person from entering, for example, the cruise ship terminal area? Is it for the port authority to enforce or is there some rule that under this plan you must have a sole entry and departure point and every person going through there must be checked? How will that work?
Laureen Kinney, Director General, Marine Security, Transport Canada: Yes, effectively that would be the case at a cruise ship terminal where there will be R2s. Everyone who comes into that restricted area must have a transportation security clearance and there must be an additional check-in and check-out person, as you described. Currently, already in place are restricted areas within every terminal and port area. Those require a check-in and a check-out procedure. The complexity is to add that second inner ring of security that is in the more critical areas. The specifics and the regulations are either at a cruise terminal, where it would be the loading and unloading of cargo and ship stores at the cruise terminals in those ports on the list, or on the land areas that are adjacent to the vessels' interfacing. There is protection around the baggage, the supplies and the vessel itself; that is at a higher level. That is where you require a security clearance. Regarding implementing this procedure, the cruise terminal operators will have to establish a methodology of restricting that access even further to people wearing the badge with that marking.
Senator Moore: Is it up to the port authority to establish this single check point and to enforce the checking?
Ms. Kinney: The authorities vary, depending on exactly how the operation is run at that particular port. In most cases, it is the terminal operator who has the security plan and is responsible. The cruise ship terminal operator is the primary point of responsibility for establishing both the access controls and the program, depending again on how the ports operate. In Montreal, for example, there is a much more integrated process than at some of the others. In general, the ports themselves will actually process the clearances on behalf of the terminal operators, but the restrictions and controlled access are the terminal responsibility.
Senator Moore: The ports process the clearances; however, is the security of the background checking done by the ports themselves? By whom is it done? Maybe you can put on the record.
Mr. Grégoire: The clearances are done by the Transport Canada office in the same manner that I described here for the airport worker back in October. In collaboration with CSIS and the RCMP, we go through a complete background check of the individuals.
The Chairman: I wish to clarify a couple of points on the answers to Senator Moore's questions. The airport clearance process is pretty straight forward. Working in the airport, you go through the clearance process. Everyone who will be going air side must have a check and people who are working in the terminal will also have a check. It is comprehensive.
In ports, your point earlier was a good one, Mr. Grégoire. In Vancouver, you have Roberts Bank, Dawson, Burrard Inlet and a whole range of places. In Montreal, it is 20 kilometres down the river. Having said that, it is a system where Transport Canada is doing the clearances and the port authority has responsibilities. The terminals, which are separate from the port authorities — that is, they are independent entities run by for-profit companies — have the responsibility for setting up the operations. Some people are covered; other people are not. It is a much more mixed bag. You also have different union arrangements. For the Port of Montreal, the way the union operates there is quite different from the way unions operate in other ports in Canada. Historically, they have assigned workers with much more authority than union operations elsewhere.
Why do you not have a cleaner, simpler system where everyone who is working in the port, or everyone who is engaged, for example, in servicing vessels in a port, is covered? In Montreal, I am thinking about the garbage collection operation, where 50 per cent of the employees had criminal records. These people go from vessel to vessel picking up stuff. Why is not everyone included in this coverage if they are moving around a port or they are in a port? We know that the problems that exist in ports are not unique to just the property of the ports. If you know people who are working there, often it is sufficient to say, ``I know where your daughter goes to school,'' to have influence over how that person will behave. To have everyone included in the background checks, given the high levels of criminality or of previous criminal experience that seems to exist in some of our ports, why have we not introduced a broader, more comprehensive system so that we know who is who and have a better sense of people who are coming into contact with other port workers on a regular basis?
Mr. Grégoire: Over the years, we have had a lot of debates on that proposal. When we announced and when we started the consultation, we were proposing to have all port workers covered — not everywhere on the port, but in specific areas of the port. However, we had opposition from the employers' associations, from the port operators, from the facility operators, and from labour. After numerous lengthy discussions, we came up with this risk-based process to determine which workers represented a risk and to start this program with those workers. In specific areas, we will screen all workers; in others, it will be done on a risk basis.
The Chairman: The dynamics, Mr. Grégoire, were such that the unions dug in their heels. The union leadership saw a political advantage by appearing to be the champion of the worker. The management organizations were in mortal terror of a shut down. The port situation in North America is so competitive that if a port closes for a while, other ships discover different ports and, who knows, they might get to like them better. What we have essentially seen is the negative elements in the port have an impact on the unions and then the unions have an impact on management. They then all gang up on you folks to come up with a much lower common denominator because there are some bad apples around. Most people working in ports want safe ports. They do not want to work beside sills. They know how important it is to avoid having problems. Yet, we seem to have come up with a system that is essentially a compromise as a result of interventions that have come forward from labour and management, but it is being driven by a small element of the labour movement that is having an impact on the management of the labour movement who, in turn, has had an impact on the employers. You have seen this happen before your very eyes. It has resulted in a very inconsistent set up.
Mr. Grégoire: It has resulted in a different approach than the approach that we started to consult with. However, there are some additional benefits. For instance, we are able to clear the three main ports because of the reduced number of workers. We have been able to add a number of ports that were not in the program at the beginning. One could argue that the security value of the program is probably the same as the original program, which was only designed for three ports, but now we are looking at 12 ports in total.
The Chairman: That is out of 19 designated.
Mr. Grégoire: What do you mean by ``designated''? You are talking about the port authorities.
The Chairman: There are 19 designated ports.
Mr. Grégoire: There are 19 port authorities, but we have looked at it from a risk-analysis basis, and, from a risk basis, the biggest risk goes to the cruise ship, so the cruise ship operations are aware the highest risk is there. Changing the program has allowed us to target more ports with cruise ship operations. This program is being started now, and there is nothing that prevents us from improving it in the future and looking at it from different angles as we continue to strive to improve all our programs. The airport program has been in existence for 20 years. We are just starting this one and so is Australia. The U.S. has not started yet.
The Chairman: However, 9/11 happened five years ago, and you are saying we are just starting now, so I do not think we should be patting ourselves on the back too much that we are just getting going now.
Senator Banks: Following on the chair's last question, Mr. Grégoire, is the program, as it presently exists and given effect, the one that you now see as providing the best protection for Canada and Canadians? Are we doing what you think we need to do?
Mr. Grégoire: We are doing what we need to do at this point in time, but is that the end for the future? Obviously, it is not because, since day one, we kept coming back with further announcements in the marine security environment by tranche. If I go back to budget 2001, that budget identified $60 million for marine security. After many budgets, virtually every budget added money for marine security. We are now up to $930 million of commitments of the federal government. Is that the end today? It is not, by any means. We will continue to try to improve the system in the future, but is that beneficial? I am convinced that this program will provide added value and add another layer of security in those selected Canadian ports.
Senator Banks: If you and all your knowledgeable colleagues sat down tomorrow for the whole day, is it likely that they could come up with a program that would be more protective of Canadians and of their interests than the program as it is presently designated? If that is so, and I suspect that it is, what are the constraints? Is the only constraint to doing that a monetary one, or are there other impediments to doing some things I suspect you would determine would be wise or prudent to do?
Mr. Grégoire: Senator Kenny himself has identified some problems that could arise. For instance, if we had developed a program that put labour against the government, labour does have the power to shut down ports. That was a consideration in the discussions, but this program, as announced now, does have security value, is risk-based and adds value to the security net in the ports.
Senator Banks: I know I am speaking only theoretically. The interests of Canadian security were in some respect then constrained by practical labour questions about unions, whoever they are, being able to shut down a port, and the prospect of doing so has affected to some degree, if not constrained, what we have in place now for the protection of Canada's interests in our ports. Is what I just said wrong?
Mr. Grégoire: No, you have not said anything wrong. It has changed the program, but I do not think it has affected it negatively because I would not have recommended it. I am convinced that the program we have now, on a security basis, covering more ports than the original program announced, is a better program.
Senator Banks: Ms. Kinney, I believe you said the business of providing the choke point, or the access to terminals, is the business of the terminal operator and would be designed according to his or her security policies and plans. Is that correct?
Ms. Kinney: Yes, that is correct. The security plan is where those features are described and approved by Transport Canada.
Senator Banks: Does Transport Canada approve the means, method and process by which people will gain access to those areas? Give us an example of who would be sitting at the booth or at the desk saying, ``Yes you can come in,'' or ``No, you cannot.''
Ms. Kinney: The types of employees at the terminals vary, but generally they might be security personnel. They have been hired by the terminal operators in most cases, but there are some cases where the ports and terminals work together to do a unified system because that is more efficient. An assessment will go on in this particular case, as well as with this new program, to say whether those individuals have an opportunity to have an influence on the security regime, and they would then be required to be part of the transportation security clearance program as well.
Senator Banks: As director general, would you authorize or approve the persons or the companies that have been engaged by the terminal operators to do that job?
Ms. Kinney: It is not quite as specific as that. Based on the guidelines and the implementation plans being developed now and the decision about the jobs that will have the control over security at, for example, a container terminal, those would be designated positions and require security clearance. The terminal operators are going through a process whereby they look at how their operation works and identify which positions would require this clearance.
Senator Banks: Do the terminal operators make that determination?
Ms. Kinney: They look at that and put it forward in the security plan. They are working with Transport Canada security inspectors through the whole process, and they look at the security assessment in that actual operation. The same named position in the operation of one site might have a different influence than it would at another site. The facility operator will go through that process, following guidelines established by Transport Canada with the transport security inspector, and then the terminal operator, in most cases, will put forward the positions in their security plan that will require the clearance. That would be approved by Transport Canada. It is approved in the region, but it is approved by Transport Canada.
If we do not believe it meets the security assessment and requirements, we would say, ``No, we think these positions need to be done.'' Once that was identified, it would then be the employer's responsibility to make sure the people who perform those duties are put through the clearance process, have the clearance and the badge.
Senator Banks: With respect to the Port of Halifax, you said that of the 27 people who have applied for that clearance 17 had been approved. Is that correct?
Ms. Kinney: Sixteen or 17, yes.
Senator Banks: Do we infer from that that it is going more slowly than you would like, and, for the other people, the process is not finished or they were denied?
Mr. Grégoire: No, on the contrary, we infer that the program has started and it is working because people have started to apply. It is premature to find out if all of the people requiring clearances will have gone through the process by December. We are only in February. If we come back in the fall, we can give you an update on where we are.
Senator Banks: At the date you picked — I cannot remember what it was — you said that 27 people had applied and 17 had been approved. In respect of the 10 people, are they still in the process?
Mr. Grégoire: They are in the process.
Senator Banks: Have any of them been refused approval?
Mr. Grégoire: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Banks: Do you have an approximate idea of the proportion that 27 would be of the people who work in the Port of Halifax?
Mr. Grégoire: It is a very small proportion.
Senator Banks: Do you have confidence that by December the larger proportion of those that are required will be done?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, I have total confidence in the authorities of the three ports to make sure that that will happen.
The Chairman: What total will there be once everyone who is required to have a pass has one?
Mr. Grégoire: We estimate that, with the three ports, plus the additional 14 ports, we are looking at approximately 30,000 workers.
The Chairman: Of the 30,000 workers, how many of them will have passes?
Mr. Grégoire: I am talking about 30,000 passes.
The Chairman: Thirty thousand passes out of how many workers in total in those ports?
Mr. Grégoire: I do not have that.
Ms. Kinney: I do not have the number offhand — and the number is also slightly variable because this program goes out to some shipping agent areas.
The Chairman: We would be very happy to have plus or minus 10 per cent. Can you give us some sense; will it be half of the people in the ports, will it be three quarters, a third?
Mr. Grégoire: I can give you a guesstimate now, but we will have to go back and figure that out; however, it is probably less than half.
The Chairman: Less than half will have passes?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Banks: You say that a person who is in a decision-making position in a container terminal will, according to the present plan, be required to be one of those persons who have a background check-based security clearance.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Banks: What about the person who does the bidding of that decision maker and who drives a front-end loader or operates a crane and picks up the container and moves it either on or off ship; will that individual likely also be required to do that?
The reason behind many of our questions is that in some cases we have direct personal knowledge while in others we have heard direct testimony about stuff that goes on in ports; therefore, we are concerned about where the line is drawn with respect to security clearance. It is a pretty rubbery line, which you have just mentioned, in some cases. How will that be determined? Will you determine that? Will you approve that? Will the terminal operator decide that?
Ms. Kinney: We have a process in place right now for the container terminals, where we would be looking at these designated positions. We are looking at trying to ensure that we have national consistency, that we have certain standards and that the type of issue you are raising is addressed. Therefore, we are in the process of developing a tool that we will be able to provide to the facility operators; they could use that tool to be a more generic tool than by name of position. They would actually look at the functions of each of the jobs, look at a value of those functions, the contribution that those functions of each position would have in security, and then you would say that these people clearly need to have a security clearance if they are a supervisor, they can direct the movement of containers, et cetera. Other people would have no influence over the movement of the container. For example, someone who is operating a crane and lifts a container out of a vessel and puts it down onto a truck — they have no influence over the movement of the container. The next truck would come up, they put it down, that person probably would not need a security clearance because they cannot control which container goes where or what is done with the container.
This tool is being developed now. It is part of the implementation development. We are working with the terminal operators and with our regional people to develop that tool to apply it across the country. We will have that in place in the summer and then the terminal operators can use that to apply in a consistent way across the country how this would be interpreted. It is a judgment call, as you say.
Senator Banks: Surely you know better than we that crime, not to say terrorism, even minor crime, theft, and other worse things than that, can and often has been done engaged in by persons who are — without reverting to class distinctions — not decision makers and who are at, if you like, the lower end of functions in ports. Since we know that, we know that you know that. We are worried about the confidence that you will have in drawing that line. That is a statement, not a question.
I will ask Mr. Grégoire my final question.
You said, Mr. Grégoire, that cruise ships pose the greatest risk. I am wondering if you could let us in on how you arrived at that conclusion, because I think some of us might not agree with that and some port operators certainly do not agree with that. I am thinking of a dirty bomb coming on a container. That is a greater risk than almost anything you could put on a cruise ship.
Mr. Grégoire: We are looking at risk based on the harm to people and on things. If you think a container bomb is more harmful than a cruise ship sinking in the Port of Vancouver, then that is your opinion.
Senator Banks: I do. Is it not yours?
Mr. Grégoire: No. We think that cruise ships and security around cruise ships and the attraction of cruise ships to terrorists is higher than on containers. That is not to say that containers are not a threat, they are, but not to the same significant level as cruise ships.
The Chairman: Did I take it, Mr. Grégoire, that you will be back to us at some point in the future with some more data on how many people have passes and what classes of people have passes and what the numbers are compared to the totals working in the areas, those sorts of things?
Mr. Grégoire: It will be our pleasure to come back. It is the third time since June, so I assume that by the fall we will come back again.
The Chairman: We are hoping we can see you before June even; once a quarter would not be enough for us.
Senator Moore: Are there different graduations of clearance approvals?
Mr. Grégoire: No.
Senator Moore: Just one; therefore, it is not like the civil service, where there are three. So there is only one clearance.
Mr. Grégoire: Only one.
Senator Moore: You are looking at a lot of people here to be checked out and approved. Do you have the resources? We asked about the time and you are confident you have the time. Do you have the resources to get this done?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, we do. When we obtained the resources, we also obtained resources for the RCMP and for CSIS. To implement the marine transportation security clearance program, the three agencies have the proper resources to handle roughly 10,000 to 20,000 clearances a year.
Senator Moore: Once you get the initial block done, it should be less each year.
Mr. Grégoire: On the airports, we have 100,000 active security clearances now. It goes up to 120,000. Experience has shown us that on the airports we have about 30,000 to 40,000 renewals a day, which is either new people coming in or renewals because those clearances are only valid for five years.
Senator Moore: Five years.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, same as at the airports. We presume that, on the ports, if we have 30,000, we have assessed the resources for 10,000 a year thereafter, approximately.
Senator Meighen: I should like to ask about the specified persons list.
[Translation]
First off, welcome to the committee. As the chairman indicated, we have missed you. We eagerly look forward to your return visit in the fall.
I have a question for you. Why do you feel we need a watch list in Canada if you believe, as I do, that the current security system is effective?
If a security clearance process is already in place, a person has to comply with the rules. What point is there in putting a person's name on a list? Of what additional benefit is this?
Mr. Grégoire: As I indicated in my presentation, a diversity of security initiatives is required. The reasoning behind this is that having a number of security programs provides an additional safety net. We believe that the watch list and the Passenger Protect programs will add an additional layer of security to the aviation industry.
Senator Meighen: This, however, has nothing to do with the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the current system. Is that right?
Mr. Grégoire: Nothing whatsoever. We believe that our processes are sound, but there is always room for improvement. This is a new program, one that provides additional protection. We want to be able to identify individuals who may pose a threat to security on aircrafts. We can stop these persons, once they have arrived at the boarding gate, from slipping through and getting on the aircraft. They will be grounded.
Senator Meighen: Yes, but if they manage to get around the security measures, what happens then?
Mr. Grégoire: They may manage to slip through the security measures, but this way, they will not be able to board the aircraft.
Senator Meighen: Will they still manage to get to the aircraft?
Mr. Grégoire: No, they will not, because they will not be issued a boarding pass. A person whose name appears on the watch list will not be issued a boarding pass. That person will not be allowed to proceed to the checkpoint.
Senator Meighen: If my name appeared on the list, there would be no way for me to get a boarding pass, either through an accomplice or through some other means. Is that right? I could simply go up to the boarding gate. Does anyone at the gate verify my name against the list?
Mr. Grégoire: You make a very good point. Canada has never had regulations in place requiring ID cards. This will be the first time that passengers on domestic flights will be required to show a government photo ID card. If they do not have a photo ID card, passengers will need to have two government cards.
Senator Meighen: Are you talking about passengers?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. This is the first time this is being required of them. Some air carriers already demand ID cards, but merely to prevent fraud. Regulations are now being brought in to require all persons 12 years of age and over to have an ID card.
Is it possible for someone to outsmart the system and use an alias? Of course it is possible, but judging from the experiences of other countries or organizations that have used a watch list, even people who use an alias frequently use the same one and it is often known to authorities.
Senator Meighen: If I understand you correctly, I am surprised that anyone travelling on a commercial airline is not already required to produce photo ID.
Mr. Grégoire: Currently, this is a requirement.
Senator Meighen: Since when?
Mr. Grégoire: That has always been the case.
Senator Meighen: So what new procedure has been introduced?
Mr. Grégoire: Now, passengers will be required to carry photo ID. Until now, this was not necessary, except in the case of international flights or flights to the U.S. where passengers were required to have a passport.
Senator Meighen: Pursuant to which legislation could a major national air carrier compel passengers to produce photo ID each time they board a flight?
Mr. Grégoire: There is no legislation on the books at present to support this initiative. We are authorized under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act to make regulations governing such matters. With these regulations, air carriers will be required to compel their passengers to produce ID.
Airlines currently ask passengers to produce ID and they do so willingly. Therefore, this will not represent a major change for passengers since they are already accustomed to producing ID upon request.
Senator Meighen: That is interesting. Thank you.
[English]
Can you explain how the specified persons list differs from the so-called no-fly list? Is the no-fly list a strictly American program?
Mr. Grégoire: We do not have a Canadian no-fly list. The no-fly list is a U.S. program. The passenger protect program will be a Canadian-designed version of that program, if you will. The specified persons list will consist of names of persons who will not be able to fly.
Senator Meighen: Are there any major differences between the way the no-fly list is compiled and administered and the way the specified persons list will be compiled and administered?
Mr. Grégoire: The U.S. no-fly list is created by the Terrorist Screening Center, part of the Department of Homeland Security. They can put anyone they want on that list, based on their own criteria.
In Canada, the department is very specific on the criteria we can use. We must demonstrate that the person is a threat to aviation security. We have established, as part of the promulgation of this regulation, the parameters that will help us determine if a person is or is not a threat to aviation security. However, we must meet those parameters and be of the opinion that the person represents a threat to aviation security. I think the concept is a bit wider in the U.S.
Senator Meighen: Will there be differences with respect to how a person can get his or her name off the list, as opposed to the American system, which seems to be very difficult if one believes the newspaper reports we read?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. One hopes it will be different, in that it will be made easier here. However, we must be careful about removing a name, because if you have the same name as a terrorist, your name will remain on the list. However, by asking you to provide additional information about yourself — for instance, your date of birth or your passport number —
Senator Meighen: At the airport?
Mr. Grégoire: No. If we know that information, we will be able to determine that you are not the same John Smith, for instance, as the John Smith terrorist. By verifying the date of birth and other data elements, we should be rapidly able to clear that person. If the individual is a frequent flyer, the airlines have also said they will find ways to keep those additional elements, in order to clear the person quickly, so that there will not be a problem every time the person shows up at the airport.
Senator Meighen: Will the specified persons list be extended to other modes of transportation? Why does is apply only to aviation, and not marine, ferries, rail, et cetera?
Mr. Grégoire: There is no current plan to extend the list to apply to other modes of transportation.
Senator Meighen: Coming from Toronto, as I do, can I assure all those like myself who use the ferry between the dock and the Toronto Island that you are not planning to implement the program for that ferry? Seriously, there was a story in the Toronto press over the weekend that it could be a possibility, but it was denied. I want to get it on the record that there are no plans.
Mr. Grégoire: You can put it on the record that there are no plans to do that at this point.
Senator Meighen: Ferries are ferries, and one could argue that the ferry between Digby and Saint John or the B.C. ferries are a possible terrorist target.
Mr. Grégoire: I did not say we are not worried about ferries. We are worried about them, and we are working with the ferry operators to improve the security framework around ferry operations.
Currently, the only ferries that we regulate are the international ferries.
Senator Banks: Just to clarify, if I am on the specified persons list and I am suspected of doing something bad on an airplane, I can, notwithstanding that, get on a train or a boat.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Banks: Or a ship or a bus.
Mr. Grégoire: Or a car.
The Chairman: Or a charter.
Senator Meighen: You do regulate international ferries; Yarmouth to Bar Harbour or Portland, for example?
Mr. Grégoire: We are.
Senator Meighen: You are not, however, regulating in this fashion.
Mr. Grégoire: We do not have a no-fly for ships. We do not have a no-sailing list.
The Chairman: Someone leaving from a fixed base operation right now would not get picked up by the system, would they?
Mr. Grégoire: That is correct, except that charter operators normally charter the plane together.
The Chairman: I am sorry?
Mr. Grégoire: They charter the plane together, so in most cases the operator knows all of the passengers.
The Chairman: That is an ongoing urban myth that charter operators have the slightest clue about who is on their plane.
Mr. Grégoire: Anyway, we will also be presenting regulations for the charter operator, but not for the no-fly, unless they are processed through a terminal within the designated airports.
The Chairman: We are looking forward to it.
Senator Moore: Mr. Grégoire, on page 3 of your report you mentioned that Transport Canada is establishing an office of reconsideration. On page 4, it says: ``. . . using the newly established Office of Reconsideration.''
Is the office of reconsideration in place, or is this just a matter of an error in the translation?
Mr. Grégoire: It is in place, but it has not come into fruition yet. There is a director in place. Staff are being hired and contracts are being engaged in. In fact, over the last few months, ads ran in newspapers looking for experts, and they are now in the process of establishing contracts with those independent experts.
I say it ``they,'' because this office does not report to me. It reports elsewhere in the department and is independent from the office that makes the recommendations.
Senator Moore: What date do you expect it to be fully operational?
Mr. Grégoire: It is operational now. If someone gets marine transportation clearance refused, you can now —
Senator Moore: There is an appeal process in place now?
Mr. Grégoire: It is not an appeal; it is a reconsideration process.
Senator Atkins: Have we adopted the model of the United States in terms of the no-fly system?
Mr. Grégoire: It is different. There are a number of differences, but conceptually, you can say there are similarities, yes.
Senator Atkins: How does it work? Do all the airlines have access to a list through the computer that they can run names through?
Mr. Grégoire: Are you talking about the U.S. no-fly list or about the passenger protect program that will come into being in Canada?
Senator Atkins: The passenger protect list.
Mr. Grégoire: We will give access to the airlines to a secure database, very secure and proven on the security level. They will come to Transport Canada, pick up the list, take it back to their airline computer system, and then verify if there is a name match anywhere in their system.
Senator Atkins: You say they come to Transport Canada?
Mr. Grégoire: They connect to Transport Canada with the computer through a secure link that is well protected.
Senator Atkins: The national port police were cancelled a number of years ago. In your view, should we re-adopt that system, or are you satisfied that each jurisdiction is doing its job in terms of the protection of the ports?
Mr. Grégoire: We have been working over the last year in making some proposals for the government. Yes, we want to improve port police in Canadian ports.
Senator Atkins: Can you share with us some of your suggestions?
Mr. Grégoire: No.
Senator Atkins: You are coming back in the fall; we will ask you again then.
Senator Day: I have a couple of questions, points of clarification, with respect to marine transportation. There were federal government programs to help the various designated ports with respect to fencing when we first introduced the initial security measures for all employees going into the port area. Now we have some special no-go areas. You were going to read out all of the areas in the regulations, Ms. Kinney, but I think we will have to get those from you later on.
With respect to the cruise terminal areas, will those be physically fenced off? What will happen at the port in relation to these special areas?
Mr. Grégoire: The marine transportation security clearance program regulations are performance-based regulations, so rather than having the government specifying and being very rigid about what is required, the government expects a performance result.
In this example, we have told port authorities that they have to control the entry of people and they have to be security cleared. One port could choose to have a 20-foot fence with barbed wire; another one could choose to have guards every 20 feet. We leave it to the port authorities and to the facility operators to choose the system that is most appropriate for their operations. In some ports, cruise ships will be in certain areas of the port only occasionally, so you may not need permanent protection or a separation between the areas of the port. In some others, cruise ships are always using the same areas and the traffic is much higher. It will have to be looked at by merit, port by port and facility by facility.
Senator Day: You will have an implementation police group to go around seeing that this is being done to your satisfaction?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. It is not police, we have inspectors. We have approximately 50 marine security inspectors spread across the country, and the idea is that the facility will give us a security plan. It will be assessed and, if we are satisfied on paper, then we will want to look on the premises to make sure that the facility operator is actually doing what it says it will do or what it said in the plan it will do and that it will work.
Senator Day: Do you anticipate that some ports will have some sort of card-reading devices with a restricted area to pass through and biometrics in these cards so they cannot just pass the card along to their friends?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. We have left that open to the ports for the time being, so we do not have a requirement for biometric identification as in the airports. We do not have that requirement at this point, but some ports may decide to go that route, and that is okay with the actual regulation.
Senator Day: Are there any federal government programs to assist ports in implementing these programs?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes. We have the Marine Transportation Contribution Program, a special program that we established a few years ago to help the port facility build more security in their port — not meet the regulation, but go beyond the regulation and build more security.
We have already allocated $96 million to the various facilities across the country for 996 different projects. This program sunsets for the port authorities in November 2007 — and that is because of the Canada Marine Act, which prevents port authorities from receiving money from the federal government. This act was amended for a period of three years by the Public Safety Act, 2004, and this three-year period will end in November 2007. The other ports, as well as the other facilities and the ferry operators, have access to this contribution program until November 2009.
Senator Day: There are lots of other questions I would like to ask you on that. Perhaps we will have a chance to do that on your next visit, and I look forward to that.
If we could move on to air travel, and the specified persons list, my questions are directed toward assuring that there is a balance between civil liberties and the right of the individual and the importance of protecting security generally.
We have been given a list of three different items that you follow in determining whether someone should be on the specified persons list. One of them is someone who it can be reasonably suspected will endanger the security of an aircraft. Are these regulations, or are these Transport Canada guidelines to determine how you will make up your list of specified persons?
Mr. Grégoire: No, these are not regulations, they are guidelines. As I said before, the idea is opinion-based. The Minister of Transport or his representative has to have an opinion, which he or she arrives at by looking at those three things — but it could be something else as well. We clearly want to limit this to aviation security threats. If an individual person has a criminal record, for instance — that in itself is not enough for that individual to have his or her name on the specified person list. If you look at those three things, they are pretty serious items.
Senator Day: Let us look at the third one — an individual who is convicted of one or more serious offences and who may attack or harm — so an individual who has committed a serious offence and may harm a passenger. In his exuberant youth, Senator Banks might have had a conviction for being in a fight somewhere —
Senator Banks: How did you know?
Senator Day: — and harmed an individual. Is that enough to get him on the no-fly list or the specified persons list?
Mr. Grégoire: I would not discuss personal cases here.
Senator Day: I am giving you a hypothetical. I am sure it is not the case for Senator Banks. I wanted to pick someone beyond reproach.
Mr. Grégoire: It has to be very serious; and to make sure we have opinions from others, we will form a committee of three. Actually, we have already formed the committee — Transport Canada, CSIS and the RCMP. Each individual candidate to be put on the list will be assessed by these three entities, and the recommendation will be made to place the person on the list or to remove the person from the list because —
Senator Day: Every 30 days.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, it will meet on a regular basis. It can add people if we have new information. For instance, if we have information about a new terrorist two weeks after the list was amended, the name will be added.
Senator Day: It is not only than terrorists; it is anybody that might possibly harm a passenger.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, but look at the three together. It has to be very serious. We are not talking about making a list of unruly passengers; it is a list of dangerous people.
Senator Day: Is your guideline conjunctive? Does each one of these three have to be there or just any one of them?
Mr. Grégoire: No, not necessarily; but you need enough information to decide that the person is a threat to the flight.
Senator Day: Okay, do you have a list now?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Day: How many people are on it?
Mr. Grégoire: Not many; we are just starting to make the list.
Senator Day: Do you know how many you have now?
Mr. Grégoire: We will never discuss the exact numbers or names on the list.
Senator Day: Is it 1,000 or 10,000? Give me an order of magnitude.
Mr. Grégoire: No, we will not discuss the content of the list. We will not make the list public.
Senator Day: I think the public is entitled to have an order of magnitude of this number of people.
Mr. Grégoire: Two previous ministers have mentioned that the list will be smaller than the U.S. list.
Senator Day: What is the size of the U.S. list now?
The Chairman: 350,000.
Mr. Grégoire: It is large.
Senator Day: It is going to be smaller than the 350,000.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, because the criteria to get on the list are more stringent.
Senator Day: Do you anticipate exchanging your list with the U.S. authorities?
Mr. Grégoire: If we were ever to get there, as recommended by Justice Denise O'Connor, we would have to do it respecting the Privacy Act and other Canadian laws. It would have to be done under a memorandum of understand, a MOU, which we do not have now.
Senator Day: Are you working on one?
Mr. Grégoire: We are thinking about it.
Senator Day: Do you receive the U.S. list without an MOU?
Mr. Grégoire: We do not have the U.S. list. The Canadian air carriers that fly to the U.S. do have the list.
Senator Day: Do you anticipate that once the MOU is done, you will receive the U.S. list and those names would automatically become part of our list?
Mr. Grégoire: There will be nothing automatic. Each name that goes on the Canadian list will have to be looked at by this committee of three. It can only go on the list if we have enough evidence to form an opinion that the person represents a threat to aviation security.
Senator Day: My final question is with respect to your 30-day review of the list. I think it is important to review this on a regular basis, but I wondered how you chose 30 days. Was that determined by the number of people available to perform the function?
Mr. Grégoire: I am sorry; I do not know why it is 30 days. However, I can tell you that we consulted extensively with everybody involved — with a large number of civil liberty groups and others — on the process and how we should manage the list. For instance, to prevent a false positive and to prevent errors on the list, 30 days is as good as 20 or 50.
Senator Day: Well, if you are on the list, 20 would be a lot better than 30.
Mr. Grégoire: If you are on the list —
Senator Day: I would like to get off that list.
Mr. Grégoire: That has no importance with the number of days. If you are on the list and you do not think you should be there, you can process your complaint through the reconsideration office.
Senator Day: Then I have to go to the OR, the Office of Reconsideration.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, and you can have either your name removed from the list or, if your name is the same as somebody who should stay on the list, provide additional information to make sure that even though you have the same name as the other person, you will not have problems when going to fly.
Senator Day: When I arrive at the airport, there is nothing that I can do if my name is on this list. There is nothing I can do at that time other than go home and make my application to the Office of Reconsideration and fly another time; is that correct?
Mr. Grégoire: Is your name confirmed? Are you a terrorist?
Senator Day: If my name is on the list, there is nothing I can do to sort it out at the airport.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, you can provide additional information. You will show your identity card or your passport and a determination will be made whether or not you are the person that is on the list. However, you are right; if it is demonstrated that you are the person on the list, that your data element matches those on the list, then you cannot fly.
Senator Day: So it is more than just a list of names; it is a list of names with other information that can be checked against what I would show to you.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, senator.
Senator Day: That can be done right at the airport.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes.
Senator Day: That is helpful.
The Chairman: To clarify a point that arose with Senator Day, the airlines will have a list. Is that correct?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, absolutely they will have a list.
The Chairman: How do you control that they protect that list?
Mr. Grégoire: They have to control the list because it has to meet all the requirements of the Privacy Act.
The Chairman: What position are you in to audit and to ensure that they keep that list private?
Mr. Grégoire: I will ask Mr. Brandt to respond.
Brion Brandt, Director, Security Policy, Transport Canada: The distribution of the list will be controlled as part of the regulations. Air carriers will be obligated to control that list and to ensure that it is stored in a proper manner. We have aviation security inspectors across the country and one of their functions as part of this program will be to ensure that the right kinds of precautions are in place by air carriers to protect the privacy of the confidentiality of that list.
The Chairman: Mr. Brandt, will not every ticket agent have access to that list?
Mr. Brandt: They will have access to information that indicates that there is a name, date of birth and gender of someone that matches a person attempting to board an aircraft. That is the kind of information that they will have access to. They can match up when a person appears to verify that that is the person.
The Chairman: Ms. Kinney, what will you provide to the committee clerk in the way of additional material?
Ms. Kinney: You mentioned the regulations. Did you want other information?
Senator Day: It is a list of the managers who have to obtain the background checks on all the employees of the cruise terminal.
Senator Moore: — of all restricted areas — R2s.
Senator Day: Yes, in addition to cruise terminals.
Ms. Kinney: Yes, the regulations contain the list. Some sections speak to the restricted areas where security clearance is required and the specific types of duties and positions that require security clearance. We will supply that information from the regulations to the committee clerk.
Senator Meighen: Was there not an undertaking to verify your guesstimate of the 30,000 people who will be given security clearance? I believe that it is about half, or a little less than half, of the total number of employees.
Mr. Grégoire: It will be difficult to provide the exact number, but we will give you a range.
Senator Meighen: You have told us that it is slightly less than half.
Ms. Kinney: May I clarify that point? As we mentioned, a number of these employees move from site to site. In Vancouver, where many employees work for a short period of time in one area, at the cruise ship terminal handling baggage for example, the port authority could end up with a large percentage of its workers requiring that security clearance because of those two to three weeks of work, whereas at different jobs those same workers might not require clearance. The estimate will be broad.
The Chairman: That drives home the logic of everyone having a pass. You will know with great precision how many passes have been issued but what you will not know is how many people are working in a port. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, you are correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I thank the three witnesses from Transport Canada. It is been an instructive meeting for the committee. We have learned a great deal more about two areas that had been troubling the committee in terms of the details. Clearly, we still have some concerns about the approach that you are taking. We are grateful to you for elaborating and clearing up some areas that we did not understand and we now have a better understanding of.
For members of the public viewing the program, if you have any questions or comments please visit our website by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony and confirm hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the committee clerk by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Two weeks from this day, the committee will hear from the commanders of the army, navy and air force as they provide testimony before the committee regarding their various commands.
The committee continued in camera.