Introduction

The Committee focused on potential terrorist activity, examining areas where asymmetric^([89]) threats are most likely.

The Committee heard testimony from a variety of witnesses in Ottawa and elsewhere. It visited major international airports at Montreal (Dorval) and Vancouver, as well as the seaports of Halifax and Vancouver and the inland port of Montreal. The Committee questioned a variety of organizations with responsibility for various aspects of security at these locations.

The Committee examined the capacities and security plans of the organizations, exploring for vulnerabilities that might permit circumvention by terrorists.

This report addresses:

a.      Security at Sea Ports and Airports;

b.      Border Issues:

c.     Emergency Response and Intelligence Coordination in Canada;

d.     The Need for a National Security Policy.

While more work clearly needs to be done, the Committee’s activities produced sufficient detail to raise concerns and to draw some conclusions on the state of Canadian security in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

1.  Security at Sea Ports

The Committee emerged from its hearings concerned about a broad range of security issues related to organized crime activities at Canadian ports that increase Canada’s vulnerability to terrorist activities.

A)  Port Authority Focus 

Port Authorities, appropriately, are primarily concerned with the economic viability of the Ports that they administer. Port Authority officials in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver testified as to the economic importance of their ports to local, regional and the national economies. All told us that a significant portion of containers they handle are in transit to U.S. destinations. For example, more than 60 per cent of the containers handled at the Port of Halifax is destined for the New England States and the Mid-West.

Port Authority officials indicated that they had relatively little responsibility for security. Security issues are dealt with primarily by companies renting space at ports, often using private security guards backed up by municipal police forces.  In some ports there are joint task forces on crime, with representatives from Customs and Revenue, Immigration, municipal and provincial police forces (in Quebec), as well as the RCMP.  The Committee found that these task forces were a helpful source of information on the infiltration of organized crime at the ports.

The Committee heard testimony that organized crime organizations are generally active within the ports. Law enforcement officials related their concerns about the degree of infiltration of these organizations. Neither the police nor the Port Authorities could give the Committee statistics outlining the value of containers and merchandise stolen at any of the ports. Claims are made to hundreds of insurance companies, but these thefts are often not reported to any centralized policing agency that could put together an accurate statistical picture of the scope of the problem. Police at the Port of Vancouver estimated that the $4 million a year spent on policing and security at the Port represents a fraction of one percent of the proceeds of crime.  They noted the enormous loss of tax revenue in this regard.

Customs officers told the Committee that criminals can make whole containers disappear as they are being unloaded from the ships, either arranging to have them smuggled directly out of the port or hiding them on port property for later looting.  We heard testimony that inspectors rarely work alone because of the danger that something will happen to them. Containers had been known to be suspended over their vehicles during an inspection, to be “accidentally” dropped close to inspectors – a brutal warning that their lives are at risk.

Statistics presented to the Committee showed that an extraordinarily large percentage of port employees have criminal records. Police and other officials expressed concern that these people had chosen to work at ports because such employment presents opportunities for further criminal activity.

The implications of this lack of control of criminal activity at Canadian ports are clear. The Committee concluded that where organized crime flourishes, it does so because activities at any given port are beyond the control of the authorities in charge of the port.

Clearly, this lack of control creates fertile ground for terrorist activity, including covert immigration, and potentially the covert importation and shipment of weapons and other agents of mass destruction.

The Committee was presented evidence of clear-cut security lapses, such as the lack of adequate fencing and the absence of either effective pass systems or comprehensive background checks on people who work at Canadian ports or have access to them.

The Committee concluded that these lapses create national security problems, and must be addressed both in the interests of the economic viability of the ports themselves, and the security of Canadians and their North American neighbours.

The paramount concern of the Committee is the safety of Canadians.  It is also concerned that there will be an inevitable and potentially debilitating economic impact on Canadian ports if U.S. border officials conclude that they are not secure.  The U.S. government is likely to restrict container traffic from ports with reputations for criminal activity and the consequent potential for serious security breaches.  When we raised this issue with members of the U.S. Congress, they admitted that many of their ports also had a major problem with organized crime, which they must address.

It is clear to the Committee that the attacks of September 11 on the United States have launched a major re-evaluation of the vulnerability of ports of entry into the United States and throughout the world. The Committee believes that significant enhancement of Canada’s ports security is not only necessary, but inevitable, and the sooner the process begins, the better for Canada’s economy and Canada’s security.

Those ports that improve security first will gain a comparative advantage. 

“The Committee is of the view that Canadian ports could improve their competitive position in North America by moving immediately to significantly enhance security.”

B) Fences and Passes

The Committee is not at all satisfied that a proper system of entry/exit control has been set in place at the marine ports visited. The Committee believes that the perimeter of the ports must be securely fenced, that entrances and exits must be closely controlled at all times of the day and night, 365 days of the year.  Within the ports, highly sensitive areas should be closed off so they can be accessed only by those with proper security clearance.

Access to the restricted areas of the ports, and movement within the port generally, should be controlled by a system of electronic passes which would identify the card bearer and restrict that person’s access to appropriate areas.  These electronic passes are a perfect example of how exploiting technology can increase the effectiveness of security.

An electronic system, as opposed to a simple photo identity card, would permit varying levels of security, depending on the duties and security clearance of the pass holder.  While electronic passes are not foolproof, they can be automatically deactivated when the holder leaves his or her employment. The success of any system, of course, depends on prompt reporting of the loss or misplacement of all passes.

“The Committee recommends a full review of the fencing and entry/exit security systems currently in place at Canada’s significant ports to determine their adequacy.  This review should also consider the introduction of national standards for port security systems.”  

C)   National Screening System

The system of electronic passes must be reinforced by the introduction of a proper screening system for port employees that will include police and security background checks. Canada Customs officers testified that they were occasionally subjected to acts of intimidation by dockworkers during patrols, or while engaged in searches.

The widespread theft of containers and the number of break-ins at ports are disturbing indicators of a high level of criminal activity. The Committee was struck by police comments concerning the sizable percentage of dockworkers with criminal records and the seeming lack of concern about this on the part of most Port employers and Port Authorities. 

At the Port of Montreal, the Committee was told that roughly 15 per cent of longshoremen and 36 per cent of checkers have serious criminal records. At the Port of Halifax, police told the Committee that 187 of 500 employees (39 per cent) whose records the police checked had serious criminal records. At the Port of Charlottetown, it was 28 of 51 (54 per cent).

The Committee is certainly concerned with the sizable percentage of employees with criminal records. But it also believes that criminal elements are unlikely to have a zealous interest in countering terrorist activities, and may knowingly or unknowingly engage in acts that assist terrorists. Even their relentless efforts to prevent Port Authorities from exercising control over activities at a port, so that they can go about their illegal activities, plays into the hands of any would-be terrorists who might be deterred by a more effective level of supervision.

The Committee is unanimous in its belief that an enhanced capacity to screen port employees for criminal activity, as well as for security reasons, is essential to reassure Canadians and Canada’s trading partners that our ports do not constitute a danger to their well-being.

Police expressed concern that unions continue to exercise excessive control over the functioning of ports.

This is exemplified by the traditional hiring hall model, whereby employers request the number of employees they need and the union determines who gets selected and where they will work.

“The Committee recommends the introduction of a compulsory background screening system at significant ports to identify from among those employees or candidates for employment those persons who are identified by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as posing a security risk.”

D)  Issues Relating to Maritime Commerce

The Committee is of the view that the complexity and costs of providing adequate security at Canada’s sea and inland ports is not widely understood. The resource needs of the agencies responsible for security at Canadian ports (Canada Customs, Immigration and the RCMP, as well as municipal police), are not adequately funded to deal effectively with either criminal activity or the potential for terrorist acts.

Canada Customs and the RCMP rely heavily on information from informants and officials in foreign countries, together with statistical analysis of previous problems, to target their work. They explained to the Committee that, absent the resources to examine every container – and hundreds of thousands move through Canadian ports and border crossings each year – intelligence is essential.

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency officials testified that three per cent of cargo containers are routinely searched. The Committee learned that this degree of vigilance is not based on any study, or any sophisticated knowledge as to the optimal level of inspection that might produce an acceptable level of compliance and security. Rather it is based on the financial resources made available to hire and equip inspectors. While it should be noted that Canada’s inspection rate is more than double the average at ports in the United States, that in no way demonstrates that it is sufficient to deter widespread circumvention. 

Technology offers a new way of inspecting the contents of a container that is more thorough than just opening the back and looking inside, and much less labour intensive than completely unloading and inspecting the contents.

Customs officials at the port of Vancouver demonstrated a mobile machine capable of X-raying a container at the rate of one foot per second.  Within a minute, it allows Customs officials to “see” into a container and, on this basis, decide whether it should be “targeted” for a full inspection.  This is another example of how technology can increase the effectiveness of security measures.  The U.S. is moving forward quickly with technology.

“The Committee recommends that in Canada’s ports the Customs and Revenue Agency:

a.      conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine what level of examination of containers will provide effective security; and

b.     receive the funding necessary to equip significant ports and major border crossings with X-ray machines and other appropriate technology to inspect high risk containers.”

E)   National Enforcement Strategy for Security in Ports.  

The Committee has doubts about the capacity of individual enforcement agencies to deal with the overall security and organized crime risks at the seaports. The inability to ensure effective security control of commerce at the ports could have a devastating impact on their economic viability.

“The committee recommends that a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act into significant ports be established, with a mandate that would include:

a.     a major review of security at the ports and the development of a national approach to recruiting, training, and the retention of security personnel;

b.     examination of the degree of control that organized crime has over Canadian sea port operations, as well as the relationship between such control and threats to national security;

c.     an assessment of the potential for use of Canadian ports to further terrorism;

d.     a comprehensive review of the customs, policing and security resources, including the role of private security agencies, which are required at ports;

e.     a review of the effectiveness of customs inspections of vessels and cargo arriving at Canadian ports; and

f.       a review of hiring practices at Canadian ports.”

F)   Universal Set of Security Standards

The sooner security threats can be identified, and the farther away from Canadian shores they are identified, the greater is the likelihood that they can be countered.

In Washington, the Committee was briefed by Commander Stephen Flynn, a representative of the U.S. Coast Guard and Senior Fellow in the National Security Studies Program at the Council on Foreign Relations about his proposed reforms to the international transportation system that would enhance this objective.  The reforms would begin at the world’s seven greatest ports, through which most of the world’s sea traffic moves.   The thought being if the seven ports agree, others would quickly follow to remain competitive.

These ports would be persuaded to agree to a universal set of effective security standards. In return for adopting these standards they would receive preferential access to the United States.

Containers would be loaded at inspected, well-supervised facilities that qualify as secure under this universal set of standards. The loaded containers would be equipped with monitors that would record any attempt to tamper with their seals. Movement of the containers would then be monitored through the use of a global positioning system.

Members of Congress and other administration officials who met with the Committee supported the thrust of this proposal. 

“The Committee recommends the Flynn model of enhanced port security with preferential access should be monitored closely and examined further.”

G)   Small Ports and Harbours

Of course, heavier security at major ports is not enough. Canada has thousands of kilometres of coastline, and hundreds of harbours and small ports with little or no security. On the East Coast there is a volunteer watch in some harbours and small ports.  The RCMP employs a limited number of small boats which can be used for patrol purposes. On the East Coast there is one RCMP vessel which has open sea capability and a second on order.

There are occasional Aurora over flights, and the Navy has set aside a limited number of days to assist Fisheries and Oceans and the RCMP.  Notwithstanding this, the Committee heard testimony from police and customs that Canada has no effective system to scrutinize foreign vessels landing outside major ports.

“The Committee recommends that the issue of the security of Canada’s coastline be examined, and a plan developed to broaden and tighten its security.”

2.  Airport Security

A)    Pass System

The Committee visited Vancouver International and Montreal’s Dorval Airport. In the course of these visits the committee heard evidence concerning different types of security passes and systems. None of the people briefing the committee were able to indicate how many passes are in circulation across the nation, but all estimates were in the tens of thousands. 

As already noted in the discussion of security in seaports, the Committee believes that use of electronic passes will allow the airport authorities to greatly enhance the effectiveness of airport security at a very low relative cost.

The passes varied in character from photo-ID, with different colours for different areas, to electronic passes encoded with information about the bearer. The latter can be programmed so that the bearer can only enter certain areas. They can also be deactivated if the need arises.

Controlling passes is complicated by the fact that pass holders work for scores of different companies. While a background check of new employees is carried out by the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,  the Committee did not hear of any follow-up investigation of unsuitable candidates, nor receive any information about the number of employees denied a pass.  Nor is it clear under what circumstances an employee might be asked to agree to additional security screening.

Of the tens of thousands of passes that are currently in circulation, the committee was advised that thousands cannot be accounted for, including those issued to employees of the defunct Canada 3000 airline, and others that have been lost, stolen or kept by employees who had quit their jobs without notice.

The Committee was struck by the freedom of access of employees who have airside passes, and appear to move relatively freely through restricted areas at airports.

“The Committee recommends for airports:

a.     that a nation-wide system of electronic identification (smart passes) be introduced to control movement through high risk security areas;

b.     that a review be conducted of the entry and exit control systems that monitor the movement within secure areas of terminals and airport perimeters; and

c.     that more rigorous security and police checks be undertaken on all prospective pass recipients.”

B)  Passenger and Baggage Screening

The Committee was told that while passengers are screened for metal objects that could be used as weapons, there has been no comprehensive screening for explosives.

Baggage checked receives significantly less screening than baggage carried,  although an effort has been made to ensure that all baggage on a flight is matched to a passenger on board.

Given that many terrorists are prepared to commit suicide to achieve their ends, more rigorous inspection of both passengers and baggage is clearly in order. 

The technology and equipment is available that will substantially increase the effectiveness of security measures and the safety of Canadians.  All that remains is to acquire it and train staff how to use it.

“The Committee recommends that equipment be installed at all airports designated by Transport Canada to ensure that all baggage and passengers are screened for weapons and explosives and that, as reliable equipment capable of detecting the presence of chemical or biological or bacteriological agents becomes available, it also be installed.^([90])”

C)   Private Security Companies

The Committee was also briefed on the low pay and high turnover of employees of security companies currently screening passengers at airports. Airport authorities stressed the importance of this work, the problems associated with boredom on the job, the paucity of training provided to those doing the screening, and the difficulty private security companies have retaining experienced personnel. The Committee also noted that inspection standards vary from airport to airport.

The Committee noted widespread dissatisfaction with the fact that this work is routinely sub-contracted to the lowest bidder, with little to indicate that this practice will change.

“The Committee recommends that a federal agency be created that will be responsible for selection, training, and supervision of persons and systems responsible for passenger and baggage screening at airports, and that this agency report to the RCMP.^([91])”

D)  Mail and Cargo Delivery

The Committee did not have the opportunity to assess the security measures in place to deal with the millions of pieces of mail and packages that are processed daily at airports. The guaranteed time-line for delivery of courier packages and mail presents challenges to security. Tight delivery schedules mitigate against adequate time allotments for security inspection. This of particular concern given the massive volume of packages processed by courier companies and Canada Post flowing through Canada’s airports. 

The Committee notes that this probably represents another opportunity to use technology to increase the effectiveness of security.

 “The Committee recommends that the movement of mail and parcels at airports be reviewed to ensure adequate security inspection.”

3.  Border Issues

A)  Trade issues

The Committee heard evidence from both Canadian and American witnesses that the rapid and assured transit of cross -border goods is a major economic priority.  The enormous volume of  border trade – approximately $1.9 billion (CDN) in goods and services each day – is vital to Canada’s economic well being.  Pre-clearance procedures must be developed to ensure the rapid flow of low-risk shipments across the border.

It is essential that a system be developed that creates a  “smart border” through the use of technology and integrated enforcement agencies. Smart, sophisticated border systems have proven that they can reliably ensure the rapid transit of cargo and individuals clearly identified as being of low risk to security.

The decision immediately following the September 11^th attacks to tighten security and impose more rigorous across-the-board inspections at Canada-U.S. borders created huge delays for routine shipments at border crossings. Travelers and shippers accustomed to crossing borders in minutes were often forced to wait hours, with trucks lined up for miles, engines running, and drivers unable to sleep because of the need to keep creeping forward in line. The impact on the economic movement of perishable goods, as well as on-time delivery merchandise, was significant.

The Committee supports the 30 Point Action Plan embodied in the “smart border” declaration signed by Canada and the United States on 12 December 2001.  The Plan has not yet been ratified, but officials from both countries hope to implement it by June. The plan would utilize existing, tested technology that has shown that it can combine speed-of-movement for identifiable low-risk crossings with effective border security. The plan also recognizes that both countries have finite resources, and that close cooperation is essential.

Delays at Canadian-U.S. borders are currently not substantially longer than they were before 11 September, but part of this improvement results from a significantly reduced volume of traffic. Reduced traffic means less tourism and reduced economic activity dependant on imports and exports. Each country recognizes the importance of maximizing border volume while minimizing security risks, and pilot projects with smart border systems have proven that this is attainable.

B)  Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Staffing and Working Conditions

During the fact-finding trips of the Committee to the west and east coasts of Canada, the Committee learned from both union representatives and management that the Canadian Customs service is under-staffed. From the unions’ viewpoint this means that, during the day, too many border posts are staffed by a lone customs officer, without the possibility of immediate support from either immigration officers or police. 

The Committee heard from customs inspectors that while three out of the four agencies on Canada-U.S. borders are allowed to carry arms, they are not. The inspectors believed that they need weapons to back up their designated authority to prevent illegal crossings at border points, and provided the Committee with a number of examples where they were unable to do so. 

The Union representing Customs Inspectors noted that part-time students carry out almost the same duties as permanent Customs officers, but the students receive only two to three weeks of training, rather than the eight to ten required of permanent officers.

“The Committee recommends that:

a.     the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency insures that all personnel on the primary inspection line are trained to the highest standard;

b.     the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency insure that no Customs Officers work alone at posts.”

“The Committee has not been persuaded that Customs officers should be armed.”

In Washington, the Committee listened to Members of Congress complain about the inadequate resources the U.S. government allocates on their side of the border, including under-staffed border crossings.  Since the Committee does not believe Canadian posts should be staffed by a single Customs officer, a combined Canada-United States post may turn out to be the optimal solution at many locations.

The Canada-U.S. border is already considered to be the world’s best example of how two countries can avoid the two extremes of a traditional, restricted border with its paralyzing red tape, and a full customs union, with the lessening of each member’s political autonomy such a union implies. The Canada-United States agreement to work toward a “smart border” should meet the economic and political needs of a border that is secure, yet encourages the free flow of people and goods.

4.   A Fundamental Challenge Facing the RCMP and CSIS

The Committee heard evidence that both the RCMP and CSIS have experienced difficulty recruiting analysts and officers with the linguistic, religious and cultural backgrounds necessary to help them carry out sophisticated missions. The gathering of intelligence is a time-consuming and complex task, but it is perhaps the key ingredient to dealing effectively with the covert activities of terrorists.

“In the view of the Committee, solving this problem will be considered a test of the leadership of the Commissioner of the RCMP and of the Director of CSIS.”

5.   Canadian Security and Intelligence Service

Based on testimony from several witnesses, the Committee concluded that the current government funding that CSIS receives does not permit it to gather significant amounts of foreign intelligence outside Canada, even though it has the legal and parliamentary authority to operate beyond Canadian borders. The Committee believes that CSIS must be mandated to expand its capacity to gather foreign intelligence.

Again, the sooner and farther from Canada’s borders threats can be identified, the better they can be addressed. Effective foreign intelligence can minimize the risk of terrorism, both to Canadians, and its neighbours. Canada is not a large enough country to develop military might on the scale of the United States or some European countries. Canada’s forte in the fight against terrorism should be intelligence, but at the moment Canada’s intelligence capacity is inadequately funded.

A former Deputy Director of CSIS and a former Commissioner of the RCMP agreed that developing an off-shore intelligence capability within CSIS should be a priority. The Committee fully agrees with one expert witness’s testimony: “The first line of defence against terrorism is intelligence.”

The Committee learned that CSIS liaison agents are overburdened with the number of refugee and immigration claimant verifications they must process at overseas posts. The budget reductions at CSIS have resulted in fewer CSIS resources trying to cover a larger volume of work.

The Security and Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), in its 2000-2001 Report, stated that CSIS conducted 125,928 background checks on potential immigrants and refugees to Canada, and reviewed 161,895 citizenship applications. 

CSIS staff have been overwhelmed by the backlog. Delays in processing applications keep lengthening. The SIRC Report states that CSIS took an average of two years to report to Citizenship and Immigration Canada on cases that raised security concerns.

“The Committee recommends

a.     that the lengthy delay in processing of Citizenship and Immigration Canada applications by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service is unacceptable and that sufficient resources should be allocated to deal with delays; and

b.     that CSIS should be instructed to upgrade its intelligence operations overseas. 

6.  Oversight Requirements

Only the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment have formal oversight review agencies. The Committee notes that the following departments and agencies are involved in intelligence gathering:

- Department of the Solicitor General, (National Counter-Terrorism Plan);

- the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (Criminal Intelligence Directorate);

- the Department of National Defence (Director General Intelligence Division);

- the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (Information sharing with the security and intelligence community);

- the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Security and Intelligence Bureau);

            - Citizenship and Immigration Canada;

            - The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency; and

- the Privy Council Office (Security and Intelligence and Intelligence Assessment Secretariat). 

The Committee notes that only two of these ten organizations engaged in this very serious and critical activity are subject to any external review process.

“The Committee recommends that there be an examination to determine which, if any, additional government departments or agencies beside the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment require oversight bodies.” 

7.   The Need for a National Security Policy

As the Committee proceeded, hearing more witnesses and visiting more locations in the field, it became increasingly evident that executive direction and coordination of activities is required when dealing with national incidents, whether natural (eg. ice storm, floods, earth quakes), accidental (eg. toxic derailments, major oil spills), or premeditated acts of terror (eg. Air India, Sept 11/01).  

There is no national security policy that agencies at all levels of government can use as standard operating procedures or “concepts of operations.” Organizational charts reveal that the responsibility for major incidents is fragmented and relegated to different Ministries.

For instance, the Solicitor General is responsible for national security issues; the Minister of National Defence for military involvement and natural disasters. A host of other departments play a part in the management of catastrophic incidents. Each situation is pretty well treated on an ad hoc basis, requiring individuals at all levels of response (often different on each occasion) to relearn lessons of the past.

There are questions as to the level of coordination between the numerous departments and agencies involved in intelligence gathering and analysis.  Each of several organizations collects, coordinates, analyzes and disseminates intelligence information in a different manner. Some do so strictly for their own internal audiences, while others forward some of their intelligence to an under-staffed section of the Privy Council Office for assimilation into a package to guide senior government officials.

The Committee received a written submission from The Medical Officer of Health of the City of Toronto, a “ first responder” to disasters, who was clearly distressed at the lack of coordination and planning as it affected her office: “There is a clear need for better coordination among local first responders, health service providers at all levels and various provincial and federal departments in the areas of:

  a.      Sharing plans, resources, and intelligence;

  b.     Scenario – based contingency planning;

c.     Tabletop exercises, training and drills;

d.     Inventory management, distribution and deployment; and

e.      Criteria and procedures for threat/risk assessment and associated protective measures for workers and the general public”([92]).

The Committee was uneasy with testimony from representatives of D.N.D.’s Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP).  While OCIPEP is admittedly in the early stages of developing its mandate, its representatives did not appear to have a good grasp of how their mandate should develop to address the protection of essential Canadian infrastructure. Since September 11, the agency’s role has become more critical, and the organization has been allocated additional resources.

OCIPEP should emerge as a key “facilitator” for municipal, provincial and federal agencies. It is essential for it to provide national leadership, and that it develop clear command procedures to deal with all kinds of emergency situations.

“Given the importance of National Security issues, and the need to have procedures and policies in place before incidents happen, the Committee recommends that a study be undertaken to develop a National Security Policy, which will examine the roles of all levels of government.”